Arxiv:1610.10023V1 [Math.AC] 31 Oct 2016 Esaearc Oreo Ugsin.W Bevdta Oeo T of Some That Observed We Their Because Suggestions

Home , Ring extension

arXiv:1610.10023v1 [math.AC] 31 Oct 2016 esaearc oreo ugsin.W bevdta oeo t of some that observed We their because suggestions. authors of these source to rich of a indebted list Ja are are extensive Jaballah, We pers intensive an Dobbs, others. give Nasr, are some to Ben Ayache, intend and that by not written pairs, do papers, We Actually, normal recent literature. but the [26]. in nothing Knebus book studied are literature. their the extensions in in sequel, Prüfer extensions these the exist introduced in that Scholia Zang definitions some and necessary find as will used well notions as the with familiar not fteei nt aia hi fetnin from extensions of chain maximal finite a is there if oicuin esyta h extension the that say We [ of inclusion. elements to of set a is xeso.Testo all of set The extension. aifisFPms lostsyFP nextension t An FCP. extension satisfy an also Clearly, must [10]. FIP extensions satisfies FIP and [ FCP in characterized chain each if property”) chain in nerletnin oia rue ul upr famodule a of support Prüfer hull, Morita, extension, integral sion, opimi neiopimo hsctgr.Let category. this of epimorphism an is morphism extension t lerspoet” f[ if property”) algebras ate ebgnb xliigormtvtosadam.Terae h is who reader The aims. and motivations our explaining by begin We e od n phrases. and words Key 2010 ecnie h aeoyo omttv n ntlrns nepi- An rings. unital and commutative of category the consider We ARE IAE N ATN PICAVET-L’HERMITTE MARTINE AND PICAVET GABRIEL ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics ofiieespoete ffies plctosaegvnfrFMC for given quasi-Prüfer. are are Applications they because fibers. extensions, of properties link properties. closely finiteness stability are Quasi-Prüferto extensions nice true. not has quasi-Prüfer being are extensions converse that almost-Prüfer these extensions define of INC also an We class is it The if in only quasi-Prüfer and appear pair. is if account extensions extension such An into where form. also papers, hidden take recent in to contexts and some quasi-Prüfer domains relativize to Abstract. QUASI-PR R ⊆ S 1. ssi ohv I frte“ntl ayintermedi- many “finitely the (for FIP have to said is eitoueqaiP¨frrn xesos norder in extensions, quasi-Prüfer ring introduce We nrdcinadNotation and Introduction FRETNIN FRINGS OF EXTENSIONS UFER ¨ ,S R, a pmrhs,FP C xeso,mnmlexten- minimal extension, FCP FIP, epimorphism, flat R ,S R, sblersof -subalgebras htaepiws oprbewt respect with comparable pairwise are that ] sfiie A finite. is ] ,S R, 1 sfiie ob n h authors the and Dobbs finite. is ] rmr:32;Secondary: Primary:13B22; R ⊆ S chain S sdntdb [ by denoted is a C frte“finite the (for FCP has of R R R ⊆ R sblersof -subalgebras S ⊆ to . scle FMC called is S S ea(ring) a be . the , ,S R, ed a .The ]. rboui hem hat pa- ch ly S 2 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET are dealing with FCP (FIP, FMC) extensions, followed by a Prüfer extension, perhaps under a hidden form. These extensions reminded us quasi-Prüfer domains (see [18]). Therefore, we introduced in [38] quasi-Prüfer extensions R ⊆ S as extensions that can be factored R ⊆ R′ ⊆ S, where the first extension is integral and the second is Prüfer. Note that FMC extensions are quasi-Prüfer. We give a systematic study of quasi-Prüfer extensions in Section 2 and Section 3. The class of quasi-Prüfer extensions has a nice behavior with respect to the classical operations of commutative algebra. An im- portant result is that quasi-Prüfer extensions coincide with INC-pairs. Another one is that this class is stable under forming subextensions and composition. A striking result is the stability of the class of quasi- Prüfer extensions by absolutely flat base change, like localizations and Henselizations. Any ring extension R ⊆ S admits a quasi-Prüfer closure, contained in S. Examples are provided by Laskerian pairs, open pairs and the pseudo-Prüfer pairs of Dobbs-Shapiro [15]. Section 4 deals with almost-Prüfer extensions, a special kind of quasi- Prüfer extensions. They are of the form R ⊆ T ⊆ S, where the first extension is Prüfer and the second is integral. Any ring extension admits an almost-Prüfer closure, contained in S. The class of almost- Prüfer extensions seems to have less properties than the class of quasi- Prüfer extensions but has the advantage of the commutation of Prüfer closures with localizations at prime ideals. We examine the transfer of the quasi (almost)-Prüfer properties to subextensions. Section 5 study the transfer of the quasi (almost)-Prüfer properties to Nagata extensions. In section 6, we complete and generalize the results of Ayache-Dobbs in [5], with respect to the finiteness of fibers. These authors have evidently considered particular cases of quasi-Prüfer extensions. A main result is that if R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer with finite fibers, then so is R ⊆ T for T ∈ [R,S]. In particular, we recover a result of [5] about FMC extensions. Now Section 7 gives calculations of |[R,S]| with respect to its Prüfer closure, quasi-Prüfer (almost-Prüfer) closure in case R ⊆ S has FCP.

1.1. Recalls about some results and definitions. The reader is warned that we will mostly use the definition of Prüfer extensions by flat epimorphic subextensions investigated in [26]. The results needed may be found in Scholium A for flat epimorphic extensions and some results of [26] are summarized in Scholium B. Their powers give quick proofs of results that are generalizations of results of the literature. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 3

As long as FCP or FMC extensions are concerned, we use minimal (ring) extensions, a concept introduced by Ferrand-Olivier [17]. An extension R ⊂ S is called minimal if [R,S]= {R,S}. It is known that a minimal extension is either module-finite or a flat epimorphism [17] and these conditions are mutually exclusive. There are three types of integral minimal (module-finite) extensions: ramified, decomposed or inert [36, Theorem 3.3]. A minimal extension R ⊂ S admits a crucial ideal C(R,S) =: M which is maximal in R and such that RP = SP for each P =6 M,P ∈ Spec(R). Moreover, C(R,S)=(R : S) when R ⊂ S is an integral minimal extension. The key connection between the above ideas is that if R ⊆ S has FCP or FMC, then any maximal (necessarily finite) chain of R-subalgebras of S, R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂···⊂ Rn−1 ⊂ Rn = S, with length n < ∞, results from juxtaposing n minimal extensions Ri ⊂ Ri+1, 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. Following [24], we define the length ℓ[R,S] of [R,S] as the supremum of the lengths of chains in [R,S]. In particular, if ℓ[R,S]= r, for some integer r, there exists a maximal chain in [R,S] with length r. As usual, Spec(R), Max(R), Min(R), U(R), Tot(R) are respectively the set of prime ideals, maximal ideals, minimal prime ideals, units, total ring of fractions of a ring R and κ(P )= RP /P RP is the residual field of R at P ∈ Spec(R). If R ⊆ S is an extension, then (R : S) is its conductor and if P ∈ Spec(R), then SP is the localization SR\P . We denote the integral S closure of R in S by R (or R). A local ring is here what is called elsewhere a quasi-local ring. The support of an R-module E is SuppR(E) := {P ∈ Spec(R) | EP =6 0} and MSuppR(E) := SuppR(E) ∩ Max(R). Finally, ⊂ denotes proper inclusion and |X| the cardinality of a set X. Scholium A We give some recalls about flat epimorphisms (see [27, Chapitre IV], except (2) which is [31, Proposition 2]).

(1) R → S is a flat epimorphism ⇔ for all P ∈ Spec(R), either RP → SP is an isomorphism or S = PS ⇔ RP ⊆ SP is a flat epimorphism for all P ∈ Spec(R). (2) (S) A flat epimorphism, with a zero-dimensional domain, is surjective. (3) If f : A → B and g : B → C are ring morphisms such that g ◦f is injective and f is a flat epimorphism, then g is injective. (4) Let R ⊆ T ⊆ S be a tower of extensions, such that R ⊆ S is a flat epimorphism. Then T ⊆ S is a flat epimorphism but R ⊆ T does not need. A Prüfer extension remedies to this defect. 4 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(5) (L) A faithfully flat epimorphism is an isomorphism. Hence, R = S if R ⊆ S is an integral flat epimorphism. (6) If f : R → S is a flat epimorphism and J an ideal of S, then J = f −1(J)S. (7) If f : R → S is an epimorphism, then f is spectrally injective and its residual extensions are isomorphisms. (8) Flat epimorphisms remain flat epimorphisms under base change (in particular, after a localization with respect to a multiplicatively closed subset). (9) Flat epimorphisms are descended by faithfully flat morphisms.

1.2. Recalls and results on Prüfer extensions. We recall some definitions and properties of ring extensions R ⊆ S and rings R. There are a lot of characterizations of Prüfer extensions. We keep only those that are useful in this paper. We give the two definitions that are dual and emphasize some characterizations in the local case. Scholium B (1) [26] R ⊆ S is called Prüfer if R ⊆ T is a flat epimorphism for each T ∈ [R,S]. (2) R ⊆ S is called a normal pair if T ⊆ S is integrally closed for each T ∈ [R,S]. (3) R ⊆ S is Prüfer if and only if it is a normal pair [26, Theorem 5.2(4)]. (4) R is called Prüfer if its finitely generated regular ideals are invertible, or equivalently, R ⊆ Tot(R) is Prüfer [20, Theorem 13((5)(9))]. Hence Prüfer extensions are a relativization of Prüfer rings. Clearly, a minimal extension is a flat epimorphism if and only if it is Prüfer. We will then use for such extensions the terminology: Prüfer minimal extensions. The reader may find some properties of Prüfer minimal extensions in [36, Proposition 3.2, Lemma 3.4 and Proposition 3.5], as- serted by L. Dechene in her dissertation, but where in addition R must be supposed local. The reason why is that this word has surprisingly disappeared during the printing process of [36]. We will need the two next results. Some of them do not explicitely appear in [26] but deserve to be emphasized. We refer to [26, Definition 1, p.22] for a definition of Manis extensions. Proposition 1.1. Let R ⊆ S be a ring extension.

(1) R ⊆ S is Pr¨ufer if and only if RP ⊆ SP is Pr¨ufer for each P ∈ Spec(R) (respectively, P ∈ Supp(S/R)). QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 5

(2) R ⊆ S is Prüfer if and only if RM ⊆ SM is Manis for each M ∈ Max(R). Proof. (1) The class of Prüfer extensions is stable under localization [26, Proposition 5.1(ii), p.46-47]. To get the converse, use Scholium A(1). (2) follows from [26, Proposition 2.10, p.28, Definition 1, p.46]. Proposition 1.2. Let R ⊆ S be a ring extension, where R is local. (1) R ⊆ S is Manis if and only if S \ R ⊆ U(S) and x ∈ S \ R ⇒ x−1 ∈ R. In that case, R ⊆ S is integrally closed. (2) R ⊆ S is Manis if and only if R ⊆ S is Prüfer. (3) R ⊆ S is Prüfer if and only if there exists P ∈ Spec(R) such that S = RP , P = SP and R/P is a valuation domain. Under these conditions, S/P is the quotient field of R/P . Proof. (1) is [26, Theorem 2.5, p.24]. (2) is [26, Scholium 10.4, p.147]. Then (3) is [10, Theorem 6.8]. Next result shows that Prüfer FCP extensions can be described in a special manner. Proposition 1.3. Let R ⊂ S be a ring extension. (1) If R ⊂ S has FCP, then R ⊂ S is integrally closed ⇔ R ⊂ S is Prüfer ⇔ R ⊂ S is a composite of Prüfer minimal extensions. (2) If R ⊂ S is integrally closed, then R ⊂ S has FCP ⇔ R ⊂ S is Prüfer and Supp(S/R) is finite. Proof. (1) Assume that R ⊂ S has FCP. If R ⊂ S is integrally closed, then, R ⊂ S is composed of Prüfer minimal extensions by [10, Lemma 3.10]. Conversely, if R ⊂ S is composed of Prüfer minimal extensions, R ⊂ S is integrally closed, since so is each Prüfer minimal extension. A Prüfer extension is obviously integrally closed, and an FCP integrally closed extension is Prüfer by [10, Theorem 6.3]. (2) The logical equivalence is [10, Theorem 6.3]. Definition 1.4. [26] A ring extension R ⊆ S has: (1) a greatest flat epimorphic subextension R ⊆ RS, called the Morita hull of R in S. b (2) a greatest Prüfer subextension R ⊆ RS, called the Prüfer hull of R in S. e We set R := RS and R := RS, if no confusion can occur. R ⊆ S is called Prüfer-closedb b if Re = Re. e Note that RS is denoted by P(R,S) in [26] and RS is the weakly surjective hulle M(R,S) of [26]. Our terminology isb justified because 6 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Morita’s work is earlier [30, Corollary 3.4]. The Morita hull can be computed by using a (transﬁnite) induction [30]. Let S′ be the set of all s ∈ S such that there is some ideal I of R, such that IS = S and ′ ′ Is ⊆ R. Then R ⊆ S is a subextension of R ⊆ S. We set S1 := S ′ and Si+1 := (Si) ⊆ Si. By [30, p.36], if R ⊂ S is an FCP extension, then R = Sn for some integer n. Atb this stage it is interesting to point out a result; showing again that integral closedness and Pr¨ufer extensions are closely related. Proposition 1.5. Olivier [33, Corollary, p.56] An extension R ⊆ S is integrally closed if and only if there is a pullback square: R −−−→ S

    Vy −−−→ Ky where V is a semi-hereditary ring and K its total quotient ring. In that case V ⊆ K is a Prüfer extension, since V is a Prüfer ring, whose localizations at prime ideals are valuation domains and K is an absolutely flat ring. As there exist integrally closed extensions that are not Prüfer, we see in passing that the pullback construction may not descend Prüfer extensions. The above result has a companion for minimal extensions that are Prüfer [21, Proposition 3.2]. Proposition 1.6. Let R ⊆ S be an extension and T ∈ [R,S], then RT = R ∩ T . Therefore, for T, U ∈ [R,S] with T ⊆ U, then RT ⊆ RU . e e e e Proof. Obvious, since the Prüfer hull RT is the greatest Prüfer extension R ⊆ V contained in T . e We will show later that in some cases T ⊆ U if R ⊆ S has FCP. e e 2. Quasi-Prufer¨ extensions We introduced the following definition in [38, p.10]. Definition 2.1. An extension of rings R ⊆ S is called quasi-Prüfer if one of the following equivalent statements holds: (1) R ⊆ S is a Prüfer extension; (2) R ⊆ S can be factored R ⊆ T ⊆ S, where R ⊆ T is integral and T ⊆ S is Prüfer. In that case R = T To see that (2) ⇒ (1) observe that if (2) holds, then T ⊆ R is integral and a flat injective epimorphism, so that R = T by (L) (Scholium A(5)). QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 7

We observe that quasi-Prüfer extensions are akin to quasi-finite extensions if we refer to Zariski Main Theorem. This will be explored in Section 6, see for example Theorem 6.2. Hence integral or Prüfer extensions are quasi-Prüfer. An extension is clearly Prüfer if and only if it is quasi-Prüfer and integrally closed. Quasi-Prüfer extensions allow us to avoid FCP hypotheses. We give some other definitions involved in ring extensions R ⊆ S. The fiber at P ∈ Spec(R) of R ⊆ S is FibR,S(P ) := {Q ∈ Spec(S) | Q ∩ R = P }. The subspace FibR,S(P ) of Spec(S) is homeomorphic to the spectrum of the fiber ring FR,S(P ) := κ(P ) ⊗R S at P . The homeomorphism is given by the spectral map of S → κ(P ) ⊗R S and κ(P ) → κ(P ) ⊗R S is the fiber morphism at P . Definition 2.2. A ring extension R ⊆ S is called: (1) incomparable if for each pair Q ⊆ Q′ of prime ideals of S, then ′ ′ Q ∩ R = Q ∩ R ⇒ Q = Q , or equivalently, κ(P ) ⊗R T is a zero-dimensional ring for each T ∈ [R,S] and P ∈ Spec(R), such that κ(P ) ⊗R T =6 0. (2) an INC-pair if R ⊆ T is incomparable for each T ∈ [R,S]. (3) residually algebraic if R/(Q ∩ R) ⊆ S/Q is algebraic for each Q ∈ Spec(S). (4) a residually algebraic pair if the extension R ⊆ T is residually algebraic for each T ∈ [R,S]. The following characterization was announced in [38]. We were un- aware that this result is also proved in [7, Corollary 1], when we present it in ArXiv. However, our proof is largely shorter because we use the powerful results of [26]. Theorem 2.3. An extension R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ S is an INC-pair and, if and only if, R ⊆ S is a residually algebraic pair. Proof. Suppose that R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer and let T ∈ [R,S]. We set U := RT . Then R ⊆ U is a flat epimorphism by definition of a Prüfer extension and hence is incomparable as is R ⊆ R . It follows that R ⊆ U is incomparable. Since T ⊆ U is integral, it has going-up. It follows that R ⊆ T is incomparable. Conversely, if R ⊆ S is an INC-pair, then so is R ⊆ S. Since R ⊆ S is integrally closed, R ⊆ S is Prüfer [26, Theorem 5.2,(9’), p.48]. The second equivalence is [14, Proposition 2.1] or [18, Theorem 6.5.6]. Corollary 2.4. An extension R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ T is Prüfer for each T ∈ [R,S]. 8 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

It follows that most of the properties described in [6] for integrally closed INC-pairs of domains are valid for arbitrary ring extensions. Moreover, a result of Dobbs is easily gotten: an INC-pair R ⊆ S is an integral extension if and only if R ⊆ S is spectrally surjective [14, Theorem 2.2]. This follows from Scholium A, Property (L). Example 2.5. Quasi-Prüfer domains R with quotient fields K can be characterized by R ⊆ K is quasi-Prüfer. The reader may consult [9, Theorem 1.1] or [18]. In view of [2, Theorem 2.7], R is a quasi-Prüfer domain if and only if Spec(R(X)) → Spec(R) is bijective. We give here another example of quasi-Prüfer extension. An extension R ⊂ S is called a going-down pair if each of its subextensions has the going-down property. For such a pair, R ⊆ T has incomparability for each T ∈ [R,S], at each non-maximal prime ideal of R [3, Lemma 5.8](ii). Now let M be a maximal ideal of R, whose fiber is not void in T . Then R ⊆ T is a going-down pair, and so is R/M ⊆ T/MT because MT ∩ R = M. By [3, Corollary 5.6], the dimension of T/MT is ≤ 1. Therefore, if R ⊂ S is a going-down pair, then R ⊂ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if dim(T/MT ) =6 1 for each T ∈ [R,S] and M ∈ Max(R). Also open-ring pairs R ⊂ S are quasi-Prüfer by [8, Proposition 2.13]. An i-pair is an extension R ⊆ S such that Spec(T ) → Spec(R) is injective for each T ∈ [R,S], or equivalently if and only if R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer and R ⊆ R is spectrally injective [38, Proposition 5.8]. These extensions appear frequently in the integral domains context. Another examples are given by some extensions R ⊆ S, such that Spec(S) = Spec(R) as sets, as we will see later. 3. Properties of quasi-Prufer¨ extensions We now develop the machinery of quasi-Prüfer extensions. Proposition 3.1. An extension R ⊂ S is (quasi-)Prüfer if and only if RP ⊆ SP is (quasi-)Prüfer for any P ∈ Spec(R) (P ∈ MSupp(S/R)). Proof. The proof is easy if we use the INC-pair property definition of quasi-Prüfer extension (see also [6, Proposition 2.4]). Proposition 3.2. Let R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension and ϕ : S → S′ an integral ring morphism. Then ϕ(R) ⊆ S′ is quasi-Prüfer and S′ = ϕ(S)ϕ(R), where ϕ(R) is the integral closure of ϕ(R) in S′. Proof. It is enough to apply [26, Theorem 5.9] to the Prüfer extension R ⊆ S and to use Definition 2.1. ′ ′ ′ This result applies with S := S ⊗R R , where R → R is an integral morphism. Therefore integrality ascends the quasi-Prüfer property. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 9

We know that a composite of Prüfer extensions is Prüfer [26, Theo- rem 5.6, p.51]. The following Corollary 3.3 contains [7, Theorem 3]. Corollary 3.3. Let R ⊆ T ⊆ S be a tower of extensions. Then R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ T and T ⊆ S are quasi-Prüfer. It follows that R ⊆ T is quasi-Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ RT is quasi- Prüfer. Proof. Consider a tower (T ) of extensions R ⊆ R ⊆ S := R′ ⊆ R′ ⊆ S′ (a composite of two quasi-Prüfer extensions). By using Proposition 3.2 we see that R ⊆ S = R′ ⊆ R′ is quasi-Prüfer. Then (T ) is obtained by writing on the left an integral extension and on the right a Prüfer extension. Therefore, (T ) is quasi-Prüfer. We prove the converse. If R ⊆ T ⊆ S is a tower of extensions, then R ⊆ T and T ⊆ S are INC-pairs whenever R ⊆ S is an INC-pair. The converse is then a consequence of Theorem 2.3. The last statement is [7, Corollary 4]. Using the above corollary, we can exhibit new examples of quasi- Prüfer extensions. We recall that a ring R is called Laskerian if each of its ideals is a finite intersection of primary ideals and a ring extension R ⊂ S a Laskerian pair if each T ∈ [R,S] is a Laskerian ring. Then [42, Proposition 2.1] shows that if R is an integral domain with quotient field F =6 R and F ⊂ K is a field extension, then R ⊂ K is a Laskerian pair if and only if K is algebraic over R and R (in K) is a Laskerian Prüfer domain. It follows easily that R ⊂ K is quasi-Prüfer. Next result generalizes [25, Proposition 1]. Corollary 3.4. An FMC extension R ⊂ S is quasi-Prüfer. Proof. Because R ⊂ S is a composite of finitely many minimal extensions, by Corollary 3.3, it is enough to observe that a minimal extension is either Prüfer or integral. Corollary 3.5. Let R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension and a tower R ⊆ T ⊆ S, where R ⊆ T is integrally closed. Then R ⊆ T is Prüfer. T Proof. Observe that R ⊆ T is quasi-Prüfer and then that R = R . Next result deals with the Dobbs-Shapiro pseudo-Prüfer extensions of integral domains [15], that they called pseudo-normal pairs. Suppose that R is local, we call here pseudo-Prüfer an extension R ⊆ S such that there exists T ∈ [R,S] with Spec(R) = Spec(T ) and T ⊆ S is Prüfer [15, Corollary 2.5]. If R is arbitrary, the extension R ⊆ S is called pseudo-Prüfer if RM ⊆ SM is pseudo-Prüfer for each M ∈ Max(R). In view of the Corollary 3.3, it is enough to characterize quasi-Prüfer extensions of the type R ⊆ T with Spec(R) = Spec(T ). 10 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Corollary 3.6. Let R ⊆ T be an extension with Spec(R) = Spec(T ) and (R, M) local. Then R ⊆ T is quasi-Prüfer if and only if Spec(R)= Spec(U) for each U ∈ [R, T ] and, if and only if R/M ⊆ T/M is an algebraic field extension. In such a case, R ⊆ T is Prüfer-closed. Proof. It follows from [1] that M ∈ Max(T ). Part of the proof is gotten by observing that R ⊆ U is an INC extension if Spec(R) = Spec(U). Another one is proved in [1, Corollary 3.26]. Now R ⊆ R is a spectrally surjective flat epimorphism and then, by Scholium A, Re = R. Let R ⊆ S be an extension and I an ideal shared with Reand S. It is easy to show that R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if R/I ⊆ S/I is quasi-Prüfer by using [26, Proposition 5.8] in the Prüfer case. We are able to give a more general statement. Lemma 3.7. Let R ⊆ S be a (quasi-)Prüfer extension and J an ideal of S with I = J ∩ R. Then R/I ⊆ S/J is a (quasi-)Prüfer extension. If R ⊆ S is Prüfer and N is a maximal ideal of S, then R/(N ∩ R) is a valuation domain with quotient field S/N. Proof. Assume first that R ⊆ S is Prüfer. We have J = IS by Scholium A(6), because R ⊆ S is a flat epimorpism. Therefore, any D ∈ [R/I,S/J] is of the form C/J where C ∈ [R,S]. We can write C/IS = (C + I)/IS ∼= C/C ∩ IS. As R ⊆ C is a flat epimorphism, C ∩ IS = IC. It then follows that D = C ⊗ R/I and we get easily that R/I ⊆ S/J is Prüfer, since R/I ⊆ D is a flat epimorphism. The quasi-Prüfer case is an easy consequence. With this lemma we generalize and complete [23, Proposition 1.1]. Proposition 3.8. Let R ⊆ S be an extension of rings. The following statements are equivalent: (1) R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer; (2) R/(Q ∩ R) ⊆ S/Q is quasi-Prüfer for each Q ∈ Spec(S) ; (3) (X − s)S[X] ∩ R[X] 6⊆ M[X] for each s ∈ S and M ∈ Max(R); (4) For each T ∈ [R,S], the fiber morphisms of R ⊆ T are integral. Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) is entailed by Lemma 3.7. Assume that (2) holds and let M ∈ Max(R) that contains a minimal prime ideal P , lain over by a minimal prime ideal Q of S. Then (2) ⇒ (3) follows from [23, Propo- sition 1.1(1)], applied to R/(Q ∩ R) ⊆ S/Q. If (3) holds, argue as in the paragraph before [23, Proposition 1.1] to get that R ⊆ S is a P- extension, whence an INC-extension by [14, Proposition 2.1]. Because integral extensions have incomparability, we see that (4) ⇒ (1). Corol- lary 3.3 shows that the reverse implication holds, if any quasi-Prüfer QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 11 extension R ⊆ S has integral fiber morphisms. For P ∈ Spec(R), the extension RP /P RP ⊆ SP /PSP is quasi-Prüfer by Lemma 3.7. The ring RP /P RP is zero-dimensional and RP /P RP → SP /PSP , being a flat epimorphism, is therefore surjective by Scholium A (S). It follows that the fiber morphism at P is integral.

Remark 3.9. The logical equivalence (1) ⇔ (2) is still valid if we replace quasi-Prüfer with integral in the above proposition. It is enough to show that an extension R ⊆ S is integral when R/P ⊆ S/Q is integral for each Q ∈ Spec(S) and P := Q ∩ R. We can suppose that S = R[s] ∼= R[X]/I, where X is an indeterminate, I an ideal of R[X] and Q varies in Min(S), because for an extension A ⊆ B, any element of Min(A) is lain over by some element of Min(B). If Σ is the set of unitary polynomials of R[X], the assumptions show that any element of Spec(R[X]), containing I, meets Σ. As Σ is a multiplicatively closed subset, I ∩ Σ =6 ∅, whence s is integral over R. But a similar result does not hold if we replace quasi-Prüfer with Prüfer, except if we suppose that R ⊆ S is integrally closed. To see this, apply the above proposition to get a quasi-Prüfer extension R ⊆ S if each R/P ⊆ S/Q is Prüfer. Actually, this situation already occurs for Prüfer rings and their factor domains, as Lucas’s paper [29] shows. More precisely, [29, Proposition 2.7] and the third paragraph of [29, p. 336] shows that if R is a ring with Tot(R) absolutely flat, then R is a quasi-Prüfer ring if R/P is a Prüfer domain for each P ∈ Spec(R). Now example [29, Example 2.4] shows that R is not necessarily Prüfer.

We observe that if R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer, then R/M is a quasi- Prüfer domain for each N ∈ Max(S) and M := N ∩ R (in case R ⊆ S is integral, R/M is a field). To prove this, observe that R/M ⊆ S/N can be factored R/M ⊆ κ(M) ⊆ S/N. As we will see, R/M ⊆ κ(M) is quasi-Prüfer because R/M ⊆ S/N is quasi-Prüfer. The class of Prüfer extensions is not stable by (flat) base change. For example, let V be a valuation domain with quotient field K. Then V [X] ⊆ K[X] is not Prüfer [26, Example 5.12, p.53]. Thus if we consider an ideal I of R and J := IS, R ⊆ S Prüfer may not imply R/I ⊆ S/IS Prüfer except if IS ∩ R = I. This happens for instance for a prime ideal I of R that is lain over by a prime ideal of S.

Proposition 3.10. Let R ⊆ S be a (quasi)-Prüfer extension and R → T a flat epimorphism, then T ⊆ S⊗R T is (quasi)-Prüfer. If in addition S and T are both subrings of some ring and R ⊆ T is an extension, then T ⊆ TS is (quasi)-Prüfer. 12 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proof. For the ﬁrst part, it is enough to consider the Pr¨ufer case. It is well known that the following diagram is a pushout if Q ∈ Spec(T ) is lying over P in R:

RP −−−→ SP

    TyQ −−−→ (T ⊗yR S)Q As RP → TQ is an isomorphism since R → T is a flat epimorphism by Scholium A, it follows that RP ⊆ SP identifies to TQ → (T ⊗R S)Q. The result follows because Prüfer extensions localize and globalize. In case R → T is a flat epimorphic extension, the surjective maps T ⊗R S → TS and R ⊗R T → RT are isomorphisms because R → T R (resp. S → ST ) is injective and R → T ⊗T R (resp. S → S ⊗R T ) is a flat epimorphism. Then it is enough to use Scholium A. The reader may find in [26, Corollary 5.11, p.53] that if R ⊆ A ⊆ S and R ⊆ B ⊆ S are extensions and R ⊆ A and R ⊆ B are both Prüfer, then R ⊆ AB is Prüfer. Proposition 3.11. Let R ⊆ A and R ⊆ B be two extensions, where A and B are subrings of a ring S. If they are both quasi-Prüfer, then R ⊆ AB is quasi-Prüfer. Proof. Let U and V be the integral closures of R in A and B. Then R ⊆ A ⊆ AV is quasi-Prüfer because A ⊆ AV is integral and Corollary 3.3 applies. Using again Corollary 3.3 with R ⊆ V ⊆ AV , we find that V ⊆ AV is quasi-Prüfer. Now Proposition 3.10 entails that B ⊆ AB is quasi-Prüfer because V ⊆ B is a flat epimorphism. Finally R ⊆ AB is quasi-Prüfer, since a composite of quasi-Prüfer extensions. It is known that an arbitrary product of extensions is Prüfer if and only if each of its components is Prüfer [26, Proposition 5.20, p.56]. The following result is an easy consequence.

Proposition 3.12. Let {Ri ⊆ Si|i = 1,...,n} be a finite family of quasi-Prüfer extensions, then R1 ×···× Rn ⊆ S1 ×···× Sn is quasi- Prüfer. In particular, if {R ⊆ Si|i = 1,...,n} is a finite family of quasi-Prüfer extensions, then R ⊆ S1 ×···× Sn is quasi-Prüfer. In the same way we have the following result deduced from [26, Remark 5.14, p.54]. Proposition 3.13. Let R ⊆ S be an extension of rings and an upward directed family {Rα|α ∈ I} of elements of [R,S] such that R ⊆ Rα is quasi-Prüfer for each α ∈ I. Then R ⊆ ∪[Rα|α ∈ I] is quasi-Prüfer. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 13

Proof. It is enough to use [26, Proposition 5.13, p.54] where Aα is the integral closure of R in Rα.

A ring morphism R → T preserves the integral closure of ring mor- T ⊗RS phisms R → S if T =∼ T ⊗R R for every ring morphism R → S. An absolutely flat morphism R → T (R → T and T ⊗R T → T are both flat) preserves integral closure [33, Theorem 5.1]. Flat epimorphisms, Henselizations and étale morphisms are absolutely flat. Another examples are morphisms R → T that are essentially of finite type and (absolutely) reduced [37, Proposition 5.19](2). Such morphisms are flat if R is reduced [28, Proposition 3.2]. We will prove an ascent result for absolutely flat ring morphisms. This will be proved by using base changes. For this we need to introduce some concepts. A ring A is called an AIC ring if each monic polynomial of A[X] has a zero in A. We recalled in [35, p.4662] that any ring A has a faithfully flat integral extension A → A∗, where A∗ is an AIC ring. Moreover, if A is an AIC ring, each localization AP at a prime ideal P of A is a strict Henselian ring [35, Lemma II.2].

Theorem 3.14. Let R ⊆ S be a (quasi-) Prüfer extension and R → T an absolutely flat ring morphism. Then T → T ⊗R S is a (quasi-) Prüfer extension.

Proof. We can suppose that R is an AIC ring. To see this, it is enough ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ to use the base change R → R . We set T := T ⊗R R , S := S ⊗R R . We first observe that R∗ ⊆ S∗ is quasi-Prüfer for the following reason: the composite extension R ⊆ S ⊆ S∗ is quasi-Prüfer because the last extension is integral. Moreover, R∗ → T ∗ is absolutely flat. In case ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ T ⊆ T ⊗R∗ S is quasi-Prüfer, so is T ⊆ T ⊗R S, because T → T = ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ T ⊗R R is faithfully flat and T ⊆ T ⊗R∗ S is deduced from T ⊆R S by the faithfully flat base change T → T ⊗R S. It is then enough to apply Proposition 3.17. We thus assume from now on that R is an AIC ring. Let N ∈ Spec(T ) be lying over M in R. Then RM → TN is absolutely flat [32, Proposition f] and RM ⊆ SM is quasi-Prüfer. Now observe ∼ that (T ⊗R S)N = TN ⊗RM SM . Therefore, we can suppose that R and T are local and R → T is local and injective. We deduce from [33, Theorem 5.2], that RM → TN is an isomorphism. Therefore the proof is complete in the quasi-Prüfer case. For the Prüfer case, we need only to observe that absolutely flat morphisms preserve integral closure and a quasi-Prüfer extension is Prüfer if it is integrally closed. 14 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proposition 3.15. Let R ⊆ S be an extension of rings and R → T a base change which preserves integral closure. If T ⊆ T ⊗R S has FCP and R ⊆ S is Prüfer, then T ⊆ T ⊗R S is Prüfer. Proof. The result holds because an FCP extension is Prüfer if and only if it is integrally closed.

We observe that T ⊗R R ⊆ T needs not to be an isomorphism, since this property may fail evene fore a localization R → RP , where P is a prime ideal of R. Proposition 3.16. Let R ⊆ S be an extension of rings, R → R′ a ′ ′ ′ ′ faithfully flat ring morphism and set S := R ⊗R S. If R ⊆ S is (quasi-) Prüfer (respectively, FCP), then so is R ⊆ S. Proof. The Prüfer case is clear, because faithfully flat morphisms descend flat epimorphisms (Scholium A (9)). For the quasi-Prüfer case, we use the INC-pair characterization and the fact that FR,S(P ) → ′ ′ ′ FR′,S′ (P ) is faithfully flat for P ∈ Spec(R ) lying over P in R [22, Corollaire 3.4.9]. The FCP case is proved in [11, Theorem 2.2]. Proposition 3.17. Let R ⊆ S be a ring extension and R → R′ a spectrally surjective ring morphism (for example, either faithfully flat ′ ′ or injective and integral). Then R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if R → R ⊗R S is injective (for example, if R → R′ is faithfully flat) and quasi-Prüfer. ′ ′ Proof. Let T ∈ [R,S] and P ∈ Spec(R) and set T := T ⊗R R . There is some P ′ ∈ Spec(R′) lying over P , because R → R′ is spectrally ′ surjective. There is a faithfully flat morphism FR,T (P ) → FR′,T ′ (P ) ∼= ′ FR,T (P ) ⊗k(P ) κ(P ) [22, Corollaire 3.4.9]. By Theorem 2.3, the result ′ ′ ′ follows from the faithful flatness of FR,T (P ) → FR ,T ⊗RR (P ). Theorem 3.18. Let R ⊆ S be a ring extension. =⇒ (1) R ⊆ S has a greatest quasi-Prüfer subextension R ⊆ R = R. =⇒ e (2) R ⊆ RR =: R~ is quasi-Prüfer and then R~ ⊆ R . =⇒ =⇒ R e (3) R = R and R R = R. Proof. To see (1), use Propositione e 3.13 which tells us that the set of all quasi-Prüfer subextensions is upward directed and then use Proposi- =⇒ =⇒ tion 3.12 to prove the existence of R . Then let R ⊆ T ⊆ R be a tower =⇒ =⇒ with R ⊆ T integral and T ⊆ R Prüfer. From T ⊆ R ⊆ R ⊆ R , we =⇒ deduce that T = R and then R = R. e (2) Now R ⊆ RR can be factorede R ⊆ R ⊆ RR and is a tower of quasi-Prüfer extensions,e because R → RR ise integral.e e e QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 15

=⇒ (3) Clearly, the integral closure and the Prüfer closure of R in R are =⇒ =⇒ the respective intersections of R and R with R , and R, R ⊆ R . e e This last result means that, as long integral closures and Prüfer =⇒ closures of subsets of R are concerned, we can suppose that R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer.

4. Almost-Prufer¨ extensions We next give a definition “dual” of the definition of a quasi-Prüfer extension.

4.1. Arbitrary extensions. Definition 4.1. A ring extension R ⊆ S is called an almost-Prüfer extension if it can be factored R ⊆ T ⊆ S, where R ⊆ T is Prüfer and T ⊆ S is integral. Proposition 4.2. An extension R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ S is integral. It follows that the subring T of the above definition ise R = R when R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer. e b Proof. If R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer, there is a factorization R ⊆ T ⊆ R ⊆ R ⊆ S, where T ⊆ R is both integral and a flat epimorphism by Scholiume b A (4). Therefore,b T = R = R by Scholium A (5) (L). e b Corollary 4.3. Let R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension, and let T ∈ T R [R,S]. Then, T ∩ R ⊆ T R is almost-Prüfer. Moreover, T = R^∩ T . Proof. T ∩ R ⊆ T is quasi-Prüfer by Corollary 3.3. Being integrally closed, it is Prüfer by Corollary 3.5. Moreover, T ⊆ T R is an integral T R extension. Then, T ∩ R ⊆ T R is almost-Prüfer and T = R^∩ T . We note that integral extensions and Prüfer extensions are almost- Prüfer and hence minimal extensions are almost-Prüfer. There are quasi-Prüfer extensions that are not almost-Prüfer. It is enough to consider [39, Example 3.5(1)]. Let R ⊆ T ⊆ S be two minimal extensions, where R is local, R ⊆ T integral and T ⊆ S is Prüfer. Then R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer but not almost-Prüfer, because S = R and R = R. The same example shows that a composite of almost-Prüferb extensionse may not be almost-Prüfer. But the reverse implication holds. 16 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Theorem 4.4. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-Prüfer extension. Then R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer. Moreover, R = R, (R)P = RP for each P ∈ Spec(R). In this case, any flat epimorphice b subextensione fR ⊆ T is Prüfer. Proof. Let R ⊆ R ⊆ S, be an almost-Prüfer extension, that is R ⊆ S is integral. The resulte follows because R ⊆ R is Prüfer. Now thee Morita hull and the Prüfer hull coincide by Propositione 4.2. In the same way, (R)P → RP is a flat epimorphism and (R)P → SP is integral. e f e We could define almost-Prüfer rings as the rings R such that R ⊆ Tot(R) is almost-Prüfer. But in that case R = Tot(R) (by Theo- rem 4.4), so that R is a Prüfer ring. The conversee evidently holds. Therefore, this concept does not define something new. We observed in [10, Remark 2.9(c)] that there is an almost-Prüfer FMC extension R ⊆ S ⊆ T , where R ⊆ S is a Prüfer minimal extension and S ⊆ T is minimal and integral. But R ⊆ T is not an FCP extension. Proposition 4.5. Let R ⊆ S be an extension verifying the hypotheses: (i) R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer. (ii) R ⊆ S can be factored R ⊆ T ⊆ S, where R ⊆ T is a flat epimorphism. (1) Then the following commutative diagram (D) is a pushout, R −−−→ R

    Ty −−−→ TyR T R ⊆ S is Pr¨ufer and R ⊆ T R is quasi-Pr¨ufer. Moreover, ∼ FR,R(P ) = FT,T R(Q) for each Q ∈ Spec(T ) and P := Q ∩ R. (2) If in addition R ⊆ T is integrally closed, (D) is a pullback, T ∩ R = R, (R : R)=(T : T R) ∩ R and (T : T R)=(R : R)T .

Proof. (1) Consider the injective composite map R → R ⊗R T → T R. As R → R ⊗R T is a flat epimorphism, because deduced by a base change of R → T , we get that the surjective map R ⊗R T → T R is an isomorphism by Scholium A (3). By fibers transitivity, we have ∼ FT,RT (Q) = κ(Q)⊗k(P ) FR,R(P ) [22, Corollaire 3.4.9]. As κ(P ) → κ(Q) ∼ is an isomorphism by Scholium A, we get that FR,R(P ) = FT,RT (Q). (2) As in [5, Lemma 3.5], R = T ∩ R. The first statement on the conductors has the same proof as in [5, Lemma 3.5]. The second holds because R ⊆ T is a flat epimorphism (see Scholium A (6)). QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 17

Theorem 4.6. Let R ⊂ S be a quasi-Pr¨ufer extension and the diagram (D’): R −−−→ R

    Ry −−−→ RyR (1) (D’) is a pushout ande a pullback,e such that R ∩ R = R and (R : R)=(R : RR) ∩ R so that (R : RR)=(R : R)eR. =⇒ (2) R ⊂ S can bee factorede R ⊆ RR =eR =e R~ ⊆ R = R =e S, where the first extension is almost-Prüfere e and the seconde is Prüfer. (3) R ⊂ S is almost-Prüfer if and only if S = RR ⇔ R = R. (4) R ⊆ RR = R = R~ is the greatest almost-Prüfere subextensione e of R ⊆ Se and Re = RR~ . (5) Supp(S/R)e = Supp(e R/R) ∪ Supp(R/R) if R ⊆ S is almost- Prüfer. (Supp can bee replaced with MSupp). Proof. To show (1), (2), in view of Theorem 3.18, it is enough to apply =⇒ Proposition 4.5 with T = R and S = R , because R ⊆ RR is almost- Prüfer whence quasi-Prüfer,e keeping in mind that a Prüfere extension is integrally closed, whereas an integral Prüfer extension is trivial. More- over, R = RR because RR ⊆ R is both integral and integrally closed. (3)e is obvious.e e e (4) Now consider an almost-Prüfer subextension R ⊆ T ⊆ U, where R ⊆ T is Prüfer and T ⊆ U is integral. Applying (3), we see that U U = R RU ⊆ RR in view of Proposition 1.6. (5) Obviously,e e Supp(R/R) ∪ Supp(R/R) ⊆ Supp(S/R). Conversely, let M ∈ Spec(R) be suche that RM =6 SM , and RM = (R)M = RM . Then (3) entails that SM =(R)M (R)M = RM , which is absurd.e Corollary 4.7. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-Prüfere extension. The following conditions are equivalent: (1) Supp(S/R) ∩ Supp(R/R)= ∅. (2) Supp(S/R) ∩ Supp(R/R)= ∅. (3) Supp(R/Re ) ∩ Supp(R/Re )= ∅. e Proof. Since R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer, we get (R)P = RP for each P ∈ Spec(R). Moreover, Supp(S/R) = Supp(R/Re ) ∪ Supp(f R/R) = Supp(S/R) ∪ Supp(R/R) = Supp(S/R) ∪ Supp(eR/R). (1) ⇒ (2): Assume that there existse P ∈ Supp(eS/R) ∩ Supp(R/R).

Then, (R)P =6 SP , RP , so that RP ⊂ SP is neither Pr¨ufer,e nor integral.e e 18 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

But, P ∈ Supp(S/R) = Supp(S/R) ∪ Supp(R/R). If P ∈ Supp(S/R), then P 6∈ Supp(R/R), so that (R)P = RP and RP ⊂ SP is Pr¨ufer, a contradiction. If P ∈ Supp(R/R), then P 6∈ Supp(S/R), so that (R)P = SP and RP ⊂ SP is integral, a contradiction. (2) ⇒ (3): Assume that there exists P ∈ Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(R/R).

Then, RP =6 (R)P , (R)P , so that RP ⊂ SP is neithere Pr¨ufer, nor integral. But, Pe ∈ Supp(S/R) = Supp(S/R) ∪ Supp(R/R). If P ∈

Supp(S/R), then P 6∈ Supp(R/R), so thate (R)P = RP eand RP ⊂ SP is integral,e a contradiction. IfeP ∈ Supp(R/Re), then P 6∈ Supp(S/R), so that (R)P = SP and RP ⊂ SP is Prüfer,e a contradiction. e (3) ⇒ e(1): Assume that there exists P ∈ Supp(S/R) ∩ Supp(R/R). Then, (R)P =6 RP ,SP , so that RP ⊂ SP is neither Prüfer, nor integral. But, P ∈ Supp(S/R) = Supp(R/R) ∪ Supp(R/R). If P ∈ Supp(R/R), then P 6∈ Supp(R/R), so that (R)P = RP eand RP ⊂ SP is Prüfer,e a contradiction. If P ∈ Supp(R/R), then P 6∈ Supp(R/R), so that

(R)P = RP and RP ⊂ SP is integral, a contradiction. e eProposition 4.5 has the following similar statement proved by Ayache and Dobbs. It reduces to Theorem 4.6 in case R ⊆ S has FCP because of Proposition 1.3. Proposition 4.8. Let R ⊆ T ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension, where T ⊆ S is an integral minimal extension and R ⊆ T is integrally closed . Then the diagram (D) is a pullback, S = T R and (T : S)=(R : R)T . Proof. [5, Lemma 3.5]. Proposition 4.9. Let R ⊆ U ⊆ S and R ⊆ V ⊆ S be two towers of extensions, such that R ⊆ U and R ⊆ V are almost-Prüfer. Then R ⊆ UV is almost-Prüfer and UV = UV . Proof. Denote by U ′, V ′ and Wg′ thee Prüfere hulls of R in U, V and W = UV . We deduce from [26, Corollary 5.11, p.53], that R ⊆ U ′V ′ is Prüfer. Moreover, U ′V ′ ⊆ UV is clearly integral and U ′V ′ ⊆ W ′ because the Prüfer hull is the greatest Prüfer subextension. We deduce that R ⊆ UV is almost-Prüfer and that UV = UV . Proposition 4.10. Let R ⊆ U ⊆ S andgR ⊆eVe ⊆ S be two towers of extensions, such that R ⊆ U is almost-Prüfer and R ⊆ V is a flat epimorphism. Then U ⊆ UV is almost-Prüfer. Proof. Mimic the proof of Proposition 4.9 and use [26, Theorem 5.10, p.53]. Proposition 4.11. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-Prüfer extension and R → T a flat epimorphism. Then T ⊆ T ⊗R S is almost-Prüfer. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 19

Proof. It is enough to use Proposition 3.10 and Definition 4.1. Proposition 4.12. An extension R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer if and only if RP ⊆ SP is almost-Prüfer and RP =(R)P for each P ∈ Spec(R). f e Proof. For an arbitrary extension R ⊆ S we have (R)P ⊆ RP . Suppose that R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer, then so is RP ⊆ SP eand (Rf)P = RP by Theorem 4.4. Conversely, if R ⊆ S is locally almost-Prüfer,e whencef locally quasi-Prüfer, then R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer. If RP = (R)P holds for each P ∈ Spec(R), we have SP = (RR)P so thatf S =eRR and R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer by Theorem 4.6. e e Corollary 4.13. An FCP extension R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer if and only if RP ⊆ SP is almost-Prüfer for each P ∈ Spec(R).

Proof. It is enough to show that R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer if RP ⊆ SP is almost-Prüfer for each P ∈ Spec(R) using Proposition 4.12. Any minimal extension R ⊂ R1 is integral by definition of R. Assume that ] ′ ′ (R)P ⊂ (RP ), so thate there exists R2 ∈ [R,S] such thate (R)P ⊂ (R2)P ise a Prüfer minimal extension with cruciale maximal idealeQ(R)P , for ′ some Q ∈ Max(R) with Q ∩ R ⊆ P . In particular, R ⊂ Re2 is not ′ ′ integral. We maye assume that there exists R1 ∈ [R,e R2] such that ′ ′ ′ R1 ⊂ R2 is a Prüfer minimal extension with P 6∈ Supp(e R1/R). Using ′ [39, Lemma 1.10], there exists R2 ∈ [R, R2] such that R ⊂e R2 is a Prüfer minimal extension with crucial maximale ideal Q,e a contradic- ] tion. Then, (R)P ⊂ SP is integral for each P , whence (R)P = (RP ). e e We now intend to demonstrate that our methods allow us to prove easily some results. For instance, next statement generalizes [5, Corol- lary 4.5] and can be fruitful in algebraic number theory. Proposition 4.14. Let (R, M) be a one-dimensional local ring and R ⊆ S a quasi-Prüfer extension. Suppose that there is a tower R ⊂ T ⊆ S, where R ⊂ T is integrally closed. Then R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer, T = R and S is zero-dimensional. e Proof. Because R ⊂ T is quasi-Prüfer and integrally closed, it is Prüfer. If some prime ideal of T is lying over M, R ⊂ T is a faithfully flat epimorphism, whence an isomorphism by Scholium A, which is absurd. Now let N be a prime ideal of T and P := N ∩ R. Then RP is zero- dimensional and isomorphic to TN . Therefore, T is zero-dimensional. It follows that T R is zero-dimensional. Since RT ⊆ S is Prüfer, we deduce from Scholium A, that RT = S. The proof is now complete. 20 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

We also generalize [5, Proposition 5.2] as follows. Proposition 4.15. Let R ⊂ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension, such that R is local with maximal ideal N := q(R : R). Then R is local and [R,S] = [R, R] ∪ [R,S]. If in addition R is one-dimensional, then either R ⊂ S is integral or there is some minimal prime ideal P of R, such that S =(R)P , P = SP and R/P is a one-dimensional valuation domain with quotient field S/P . Proof. R is obviously local. Let T ∈ [R,S] \ [R, R] and s ∈ T \ R. Then s ∈ U(S) and s−1 ∈ R by Proposition 1.2 (1). But s−1 6∈ U(R), so that s−1 ∈ N. It follows that there exists some integer n such that s−n ∈ (R : R), giving s−nR ⊆ R, or, equivalently, R ⊆ Rsn ⊆ T . Then, T ∈ [R,S] and we obtain [R,S] = [R, R] ∪ [R,S]. Assume that R is one-dimensional. If R ⊂ S is not integral then R ⊂ S is Prüfer and R is one-dimensional. To complete the proof, use Proposition 1.2 (3). 4.2. FCP extensions. In case we consider only FCP extensions, we obtain more results. Proposition 4.16. Let R ⊆ S be an FCP extension. The following statements are equivalent: (1) R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer. (2) RP ⊆ SP is either integral or Prüfer for each P ∈ Spec(R). (3) RP ⊆ SP is almost-Prüfer and Supp(S/R) ∩ Supp(R/R)= ∅. (4) Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(S/R)= ∅. e e Proof. The equivalence of Proposition 4.12 shows that (2) ⇔ (1) holds because T = T and over a local ring T , an almost-Prüfer FCP extension T ⊆ U isb eithere integral or Prüfer [39, Proposition 2.4] . Moreover when RP ⊆ SP is either integral or Prüfer, it is easy to show that (R)P = RP Next we show that (3) is equivalent to (2) of Proposition 4.12.e f Let P ∈ Supp(S/R) ∩ Supp(R/R) be such that RP ⊆ SP is almost- Prüfer. Then, (R)P e=6 RP ,SP , soe that RP ⊂ (R)P ⊂ SP . Since R ⊂ R is Prüfer, so is ReP ⊂ (R)P , giving (R)P ⊆ RP ande RP =6 RP . It followse that RP = SP in viewe of the dichotomye principlef [39, Propositionf 3.3] since fRP is a local ring, and then RP =(6 R)P .

Conversely, assume that RP =6 f (R)P , i.e.e P ∈ Supp(S/R). Then,

RP =6 RP , so that RP = SPf, as wee have just seen. Hence RP ⊂ SP is integrallyf closed.f It follows that RP = RP = RP , so that P 6∈ Supp(R/R) and P ∈ Supp(R/R) by Theorem 4.6(5). Moreover, RP =6 e e QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 21

SP implies that P ∈ Supp(S/R). To conclude, P ∈ Supp(S/R) ∩ Supp(R/R). e e (1) ⇔e (4) An FCP extension is quasi-Prüfer by Corollary 3.4. Sup- pose that R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer. By Theorem 4.6, letting U := R, we get that U ∩R = R and S = RU. We deduce from [39, Propositione 3.6] that Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(S/R) = ∅. Suppose that this last condition holds. Then by [39, Proposition 3.6] R ⊆ S can be factored R ⊆ U ⊆ S, where R ⊆ U is integrally closed, whence Prüfer by Proposition 1.3, and U ⊆ S is integral. Therefore, R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer. Lemma 4.17. Let B ⊂ D and C ⊂ D be two integral minimal extensions and A := B ∩ C. If A ⊂ D has FCP, then, A ⊂ D is integral. Proof. Set M := (B : D) and N := (C : D). If M =6 N, then, A ⊂ D is integral by [13, Proposition 6.6]. Assume that M = N. Then, M ∈ Max(A) by [13, Proposition 5.7]. Let B′ be the integral closure of A in B. Then M is also an ideal of B′, which is prime in B′, and then maximal in B′. If A ⊂ D is an FCP extension, so is B′ ⊆ B, which is a flat epimorphism, and so is B′/M ⊆ B/M. Then, B′ = B since B′/M is a field. It follows that A ⊆ B is an integral extension, and so is A ⊂ D. Proposition 4.18. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP almost-Prüfer extension. Then, R = R is the least T ∈ [R,S] such that T ⊆ S is integral. e b Proof. We may assume that R ⊂ S is not integral. If there is some U ∈ [R, R] such that U ⊆ R is integral, then U = R. Set X := {T ∈ [R,S] | Te⊆ S integral}. Ite follows that R is a minimale element of X. We are going to show that R is the leaste element of X. Set n := ℓ[R,S] ≥ 1 ande let R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂···⊂ Rn−1 ⊂ Rn = S be a maximale chain of [R,S], withe length n. There does not exist a maximal chain of R-subalgebrase of S with length > n. Let T ∈ X. We intend to show thate T ∈ [R,S]. It is enough to choose T such that T is a minimal element of Xe. Consider the induction hypothesis: (Hn): X ⊆ [R,S] when n := ℓ[R,S].

Wee first show (H1). Ifen = 1, R ⊂ S is minimal. Let T ∈ X and T1 ∈ [T,S] be such that T1 ⊂ S eis minimal. Assume that T1 =6 R. Lemma 4.17 shows that T1 ∩ R ⊂ R is integral, which contradicts thee beginning of the proof. Then,e T1 e= R, so that T = R for the same contradiction and (H1) is proved. e e Assume that n > 1 and that (Hk) holds for any k < n. Let T ∈ X and T1 ∈ [T,S] be such that T1 ⊂ S is minimal. If T1 ∈ [R,S], then e 22 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET k := ℓ[R, T1] ≤ n−1. But we get that T ∈ [R, T1], with T ⊆ T1 integral. Moreover,e R is also the Prüfer hull of R ⊆ T1, with k := ℓ[R, T1] ≤ n−1. Since (Hk)e holds, we get that T ∈ [R, T1] ⊂ [R,S]. e If T1 6∈ [R,S], set U := T1 ∩Rn−1.e We get thate T1 ⊂ S and Rn−1 ⊂ S are minimale and integral. Using again Lemma 4.17, we get that U ⊂ S is integral, with ℓ[R, Rn−1]= n − 1 and U ∈ [R, Rn−1]. As before, R is also the Prüfer hulle of R ⊆ Rn−1. Since (Hn−1) holds, U ∈ [R, Rne−1], so that T1 ∈ [R,S], a contradiction. Therefore, (Hn) is proved.e We will neede a relative version of the support. Let f : R → T be a ring morphism and E a T -module. The relative support of E over R is S a S S R(E) := f(SuppT (E)) and M R(E) := R(E)∩Max(R). In partic- S ular, for a ring extension R ⊂ S, we have R(S/R) := SuppR(S/R)). Proposition 4.19. Let R ⊆ S be an FCP extension. The following statements hold: (1) Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(R/R)= ∅. (2) Supp(R/Re ) ∩ Supp(R/R) = Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(R/R)= ∅. (3) MSupp(e S/R) = MSupp(R/R) ∪ MSupp(e e R/R). e e Proof. (1) is a consequence of Proposition 4.16(4) because R ⊆ R is almost-Prüfer. e We prove the first part of (2). If some M ∈ Supp(R/R)∩Supp(R/R), ′ it can be supposed in Max(R). Set R := RM , U :=e (R)M , T := (R)M ′ ′ ′ and M := MRM . Then, R =6 U, T , with R ⊂ U FCPe Prüfer and R′ ⊂ T FCP integral, an absurdity [39, Proposition 3.3]. To show the second part, assume that some P ∈ Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(R/R). Then, P 6∈ Supp(R/R) by the first part of (2),e soe that

RP = Re P , giving (R)P = RP RP = RP , a contradiction. S S (3) Obviously, MSupp(e S/Re) = MSe (S/R) = MS (S/T )∪MS (T /T ) T T ∪MS (T/U )∪MS (U /U)∪MS (U/R). By [39, Propositions 2.3 and S S T 3.2], we have MS (S/T ) ⊆ S (T /T ) = S (R/R ) = MS (R/R) = T T MSupp(R/R), MS (T/U ) = S (R /R) ⊆ S (R/R) = Supp(R/R) T T and MS (U /U)= S (R /R) = Supp(R/R). To conclude, MSupp(S/R)= MSupp(R/R) ∪ MSupp(R/R). Propositione 4.20. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP extension and M ∈ MSupp(S/R), then RM =(R)M if and only if M 6∈ MSupp(S/R) ∩ MSupp(R/R). g e e e Proof. In fact, we are going to show that RM =6 (R)M if and only if M ∈ MSupp(S/R) ∩ MSupp(R/R). g e e e QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 23

Let M ∈ MSupp(S/R) ∩ MSupp(R/R). Then, RM =6 RM ,SM and then RM ⊂ RM ⊂ SMe. Since R ⊂e R is Pr¨ufer,g so is RM ⊂ RM by Propositiong 1.2, giving (R)M ⊆ RMe and RM =6 RM . Therefore,g

RM = SM [39, Proposition 3.3]e since RgM is local, and thengRM =(6 R)M . gConversely, if RM =6 (R)M , then, RM =6 RM , so that RgM = SMe, as we have just seeng and thene RM ⊂ SM is integrallyg closed.g It follows that RM = RM = RM , so that M 6∈ MSupp(R/R). Hence, M ∈ MSupp(R/R) by Proposition 4.19(3). Moreover, RM =6 SM ⇒ M ∈ MSupp(S/e R). To conclude, M ∈ MSupp(S/R) ∩ MSupp(e R/R). e e e If R ⊆ S is any ring extension, with dim(R) = 0, then RM =(R)M for any M ∈ Max(R). Indeed by Scholium A (2), the flat epimorphismg e R → R is bijective as well as RM → (R)M . This conclusion is still valid ine another context. e Corollary 4.21. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP extension. Assume that one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) MSupp(S/R) ∩ MSupp(R/R)= ∅. (2) S = RR, ore equivalently,eR ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer. e Then, RM =(R)M for any M ∈ Max(R). g e Proof. (1) is Proposition 4.20. (2) is Proposition 4.12.

Proposition 4.22. Let R ⊂ S be an almost-Prüfer FCP extension. Then, any T ∈ [R,S] is the integral closure of T ∩ R in T R. e e Proof. Set U := T ∩ R and V := T R. Since R ⊂ S is almost-Prüfer, U ⊆ R is Prüfer and Re ⊆ V is integrale and R is also the Prüfer hull of U ⊆ Ve. Because R ⊂ eS is almost-Prüfer, fore each M ∈ MSuppR(S/R), RM ⊆ SM is either integral, or Prüfer by Proposition 4.16, and so is UM ⊆ VM . But RM = (R)M by Corollary 4.21 is also the Prüfer hull ′ ′ of UM ⊆ VM . LetgT bee the integral closure of U in V . Then, TM is the integral closure of UM in VM . ′ Assume that UM ⊆ VM is integral. Then VM = TM and UM =(R)M , ′ so that VM = TM (R)M = TM , giving TM = TM . e ′ Assume that UMe⊆ VM is Prüfer. Then UM = TM and VM =(R)M , ′ so that UM = TM ∩ (R)M = TM , giving TM = TM . e ′ To conclude, we gete that TM = TM for each M ∈ MSuppR(S/R). ′ Since RM = SM , with TM = TM for each M ∈ Max(R)\MSuppR(S/R), we get T = T ′, whence T is the integral closure of U ⊆ V . 24 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

We build an example of an FCP extension R ⊂ S where we have RM =6 (R)M for some M ∈ Max(R). In particular, R ⊂ S is not almost-Prüfer.g e Example 4.23. Let R be an integral domain with quotient field S and Spec(R) := {M1, M2,P, 0}, where M1 =6 M2 are two maximal ideals and P a prime ideal satisfying P ⊂ M1 ∩ M2. Assume that there are R1, R2 and R3 such that R ⊂ R1 is Prüfer minimal, with C (R, R1) = M1, R ⊂ R2 is integral minimal, with C (R, R2) = M2 and R2 ⊂ R3 is Prüfer minimal, with C (R2, R3) = M3 ∈ Max(R2) such that M3 ∩ R = M2 and M2R3 = R3. This last condition is satisfied when R ⊂ R2 is either ramified or inert. Indeed, in both 2 cases, M3R3 = R3; moreover, in the ramified case, we have M3 ⊆ M2 and in the inert case, M3 = M2 [36, Theorem 3.3]. We apply [13, ′ Proposition 7.10] and [10, Lemma 2.4] several times. Set R2 := R1R2. ′ C ′ ′ Then, R1 ⊂ R2 is integral minimal, with (R1, R2) =: M2 = M2R1 ′ C ′ ′ and R2 ⊂ R2 is Prüfer minimal, with (R2, R2) =: M1 = M1R2 ∈ ′ ′ Max(R2). Moreover, M1 =6 M3, Spec(R1) = {M2,P1, 0}, where P1 is the only prime ideal of R1 lying over P . But, P = (R : R1) by ′ ′ ′ [17, Proposition 3.3], so that P = P1. Set R3 := R3R2. Then, R2 ⊂ ′ C ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ R3 is Prüfer minimal, with (R2, R3) =: M3 = M3R2 ∈ Max(R2) ′ C ′ ′′ and R3 ⊂ R3 is Prüfer minimal, with (R3, R3) = M1 = M1R3 ∈ ′ ′ ′ Max(R3). It follows that we have Spec(R3) = {P , 0} where P is the ′ ′ only prime ideal of R3 lying over P . To end, assume that R3 ⊂ S is C ′ ′ Prüfer minimal, with (R3,S)= P . Hence, R2 is the integral closure of R in S. In particular, R ⊂ S has FCP [10, Theorems 6.3 and 3.13] and is quasi-Prüfer. Since R ⊂ R1 is integrally closed, we have R1 ⊆ R. Assume that R1 =6 R. Then, there exists T ∈ [R1,S] such C ′ that Re1 ⊂ T is Prüfer minimale and (R1, T ) = M2, a contradiction ′ C ′ ′ by Proposition 4.16 since M2 = (R1, R2), with R1 ⊂ R2 integral minimal. Then, R1 = R. It follows that M1 ∈ MSupp(R/R). But, C ′ P = (R3,S) ∩ R ∈ Supp(e S/R) and P ⊂ M1 give M1 ∈ MSupp(e S/R), so that RM1 =6 (R)M1 by Propositione 4.20 giving that R ⊂ S is note almost-Prüfer.g e We now intend to refine Theorem 4.6, following the scheme used in [4, Proposition 4] for extensions of integral domains. Proposition 4.24. Let R ⊆ S and U, T ∈ [R,S] be such that R ⊆ U is integral and R ⊆ T is Prüfer. Then U ⊆ UT is Prüfer in the following cases and R ⊆ UT is almost-Prüfer. (1) Supp(R/R)∩Supp(R/R)= ∅ (for example, if R ⊆ S has FCP). (2) R ⊆ U preserves integrale closure. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 25

Proof. (1) We have ∅ = MSupp(U/R)∩MSupp(T/R), since U ⊆ R and T ⊆ R. Let M ∈ MSupp((UT )/R). For M ∈ MSupp(U/R), we have RM =eTM and (UT )M = UM . If M∈ / MSupp(U/R), then UM = RM and (UT )M = TM , so that UM ⊆ (UT )M identifies to RM ⊆ TM . Let N ∈ Max(U) and set M := N ∩ R ∈ Max(R) since R ⊆ U is integral. If M 6∈ Supp(R/R), then RM = RM = UM and N is the only maximal ideal of U lying over M. It follows that UM = UN and (UT )M = (UT )N by [10, Lemma 2.4]. Then, UN ⊆ (UT )N identifies to RM ⊆ TM which is Prüfer. If M 6∈ Supp(R/R), then RM = TM gives UM = (UT )M , so that UN = (UT )N by localizinge the precedent equality and UN ⊆ (UT )N is still Prüfer. Therefore, U ⊆ UT is locally Prüfer, whence Prüfer by Proposition 1.1. (2) The usual reasoning shows that U ⊗R T ∼= UT , so that U ⊆ UT UT UT is integrally closed. Since U is contained in R , we get that U = R . Now observe that R ⊆ UT is almost-Prüfer, whence quasi-Prüfer. It follows that U ⊆ UT is Prüfer. Next propositions generalize Ayache’s results of [4, Proposition 11]. Proposition 4.25. Let R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension, T, T ′ ∈ [R,S] and U := T ∩ T ′. The following statements hold: (1) T = (T^∩ R) for each T ∈ [R,S]. (2) Te ∩ T ′ ⊆ T^∩ T ′. (3) Lete Supp(e T /T )∩Supp(T/T )= ∅ (this assumption holds if R ⊆ S has FCP). Then, T ⊆eT ′ ⇒ T ⊆ T ′. (4) If Supp(U/U) ∩ Supp(U/U)= e∅, thene T ∩ T ′ = T^∩ T ′. e e e Proof. (1) We observe that R ⊆ T is quasi-Prüfer by Corollary 3.3. Since T ∩ R is the integral closure of R in T , we get that T ∩ R ⊆ T is Prüfer. It follows that T ∩ R ⊆ T is Prüfer. We thus have T ⊆ T^∩ R. To prove the reverse inclusion, wee set V := T ∩ R and We:= V ∩ T . We have W ∩ R = V ∩ R = V , because V ⊆ V ∩ R is integrale and Prüfer since we havee a tower V ⊆ V ∩ R ⊆ V e. Therefore, V ⊆ W is Prüfer because W ∈ [V, V ]. Moreover,e T ⊆eT ⊆ V , since V ⊆ T is Prüfer. Then, T ⊆ W ise integral because W ∈e [T, Te], and we havee V ⊆ T ⊆ W . This entails that T = W = V ∩ T , so that T ⊆ V is Prüfer. It follows that V ⊆ T since T ∈ [V, Ve]. e (2) A quasi-Prüfer extensione e is Prüfer ife and only if it is integrally closed. We observe that T ∩ T ′ ⊆ T ∩ T ′ is integrally closed, whence Prüfer. It follows that T ∩ T ′ ⊆ T^∩eT ′. e e e 26 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(3) Set U = T ∩ R and U ′ = T ′ ∩ R, so that U, U ′ ∈ [R, R] with U ⊆ U ′. In view of (1), we thus can suppose that T, T ′ ∈ [R, R]. It follows that T ⊆ T ′ is integral and T ⊆ T is Prüfer. We deduce from Proposition 4.24(1) that T ′ ⊆ T ′T is Prüfer,e so that TT ′ ⊆ T ′, because Supp(T /T ) ∩ Supp(T/T )= ∅ ande T = R. Therefore,e we havee T ⊆ T ′. (4) Assume that Supp(e U/U)∩Supp(U/U)= ∅. Then, T ∩T ′ ⊂e T,e T ′ gives T^∩ T ′ ⊆ T ∩T ′ in view of (3), so thate T^∩ T ′ = T ∩T ′ by (2). Proposition 4.26.e eLet R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extensione e and T ⊆ T ′ a subextension of R ⊆ S. Set U := T ∩ R, U ′ := T ′ ∩ R, V := T R and V ′ := T ′R. The following statements hold: (1) T ⊆ T ′ is integral if and only if V = V ′. (2) T ⊆ T ′ is Prüfer if and only if U = U ′. (3) Assume that U ⊂ U ′ is integral minimal and V = V ′. Then, T ⊂ T ′ is integral minimal, of the same type as U ⊂ U ′. (4) Assume that V ⊂ V ′ is Prüfer minimal and U = U ′. Then, T ⊂ T ′ is Prüfer minimal. (5) Assume that T ⊂ T ′ is minimal and set P := C(T, T ′). (a) If T ⊂ T ′ is integral, then U ⊂ U ′ is integral minimal if and only if P ∩ U ∈ Max(U). (b) If T ⊂ T ′ is Prüfer, then V ⊂ V ′ is Prüfer minimal if and only if there is exactly one prime ideal in V lying over P . Proof. In [R,S] we have the integral extensions U ⊆ U ′, T ⊆ V, T ′ ⊆ V ′ and the Prüfer extensions V ⊆ V ′, U ⊆ T, U ′ ⊆ T ′. Moreover, R is also the integral closure of U ⊆ V ′. (1) is gotten by considering the extension T ⊆ V ′, which is both T ⊆ V ⊆ V ′ and T ⊆ T ′ ⊆ V ′. (2) is gotten by considering the extension U ⊆ T ′, which is both U ⊆ T ⊆ T ′ and U ⊆ U ′ ⊆ T ′. (3) Assume that U ⊂ U ′ is integral minimal and V = V ′. Then, T ⊂ T ′ is integral by (1) and T =6 T ′ because of (2). Set M := (U : ′ ′ ′ ′ U ) ∈ SuppU (U /U). For any M ∈ Max(U) such that M =6 M, we ′ ′ ′ have UM ′ = UM ′ , so that TM ′ = T M ′ because UM ′ ⊆ TM ′ is Prüfer. But, U ⊆ T ′ is almost-Prüfer, giving T ′ = T U ′. By Theorem 4.6, (T : T ′)=(U : U ′)T = MT =6 T because T =6 T ′. We get that U ⊆ T Prüfer implies that M 6∈ SuppU (T/U) and UM = TM . It follows that ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ T M = TM U M = U M . Therefore, TM ⊆ T M identifies to UM ⊆ U M , which is minimal of the same type as U ⊂ U ′ by [13, Proposition 4.6]. Then, T ⊂ T ′ is integral minimal, of the same type as U ⊂ U ′. (4) Assume that V ⊂ V ′ is Prüfer minimal and U = U ′. Then, T ⊂ T ′ is Prüfer by (2) and T =6 T ′ because of (1). Set Q := C(V,V ′) QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 27 and P := Q ∩ T ∈ Max(T ) since Q ∈ Max(V ). For any P ′ ∈ Max(T ) ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ such that P =6 P , and Q ∈ Max(V ) lying above P , we have VQ = VQ′ , ′ ′ ′ so that VP ′ = V P ′ . It follows that T P ′ ⊆ V P ′ is integral, so that ′ ′ ′ ′ TP ′ = T P ′ and P 6∈ SuppT (T /T ). We get that T ⊂ T is Prüfer minimal in view of [10, Proposition 6.12]. (5) Assume that T ⊂ T ′ is a minimal extension and set P := C(T, T ′). (a) Assume that T ⊂ T ′ is integral. Then, V = V ′ and U =6 U ′ by (1) and (2). We can use Proposition 4.5 getting that P = (U : U ′)T ∈ Max(T ) and Q := (U : U ′)= P ∩ U ∈ Spec(U). It follows that ′ ′ ′ Q 6∈ SuppU (T/U), so that UQ = TQ and UQ = TQ. Then, UQ ⊂ UQ is ′ integral minimal, with Q ∈ SuppU (U /U). If Q 6∈ Max(U), then U ⊂ U ′ is not minimal by the properties of the crucial maximal ideal. Assume that Q ∈ Max(U) and let M ∈ Max(U), with M =6 Q. ′ ′ Then, UM = UM because M + Q = U, so that U ⊂ U is a minimal extension and (a) is gotten. (b) Assume that T ⊂ T ′ is Prüfer. Then, V =6 V ′ and U = U ′ by (1) and (2). Moreover, P T ′ = T ′ gives PV ′ = V ′. Let Q ∈ Max(V ) lying ′ ′ ′ over P . Then, QV = V gives that Q ∈ SuppV (V /V ). Moreover, we ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ have V = V T . Let P ∈ Max(T ), P =6 P . Then, TP ′ = TP ′ gives ′ ′ ′ VP ′ = VP ′ . It follows that SuppT (V /V ) = {P } and SuppV (V /V ) = {Q ∈ Max(V ) | Q ∩ T = P }. But, by [10, Proposition 6.12], V ⊂ V ′ is ′ Prüfer minimal if and only if |SuppV (V /V )| = 1, and then if and only if there is exactly one prime ideal in V lying over P . Lemma 4.27. Let R ⊆ S be an FCP almost-Prüfer extension and U ∈ [R, R], V ∈ [R,S]. Then U ⊆ V has FCP and is almost-Prüfer. Proof. Obviously, U ⊆ V has FCP and R is the integral closure of U in V . Proposition 4.16 entails that SuppR(R/R) ∩ SuppR(S/R) = ∅. We claim that SuppU (R/U) ∩ SuppU (V/R) = ∅. Deny and let Q ∈ SuppU (R/U) ∩ SuppU (V/R). Then, RQ =6 UQ,VQ. If P := Q ∩ R. we get that RP =6 UP ,VP , giving RP =6 RP ,SP , a contradiction. Another use of Proposition 4.16 shows that U ⊆ V is almost-Prüfer. Proposition 4.28. Let R ⊆ S be an FCP almost-Prüfer extension and T ⊆ T ′ a subextension of R ⊆ S. Set U := T ∩ R and V ′ := T ′R. Let W be the Prüfer hull of U ⊆ V ′. Then, W is also the Prüfer hull of T ⊆ T ′ and T ⊆ T ′ is an FCP almost-Prüfer extension. Proof. By Lemma 4.27, we get that U ⊆ V ′ is an FCP almost-Prüfer extension. Let T be the Prüfer hull of T ⊆ T ′. Since U ⊆ T and T ⊆ T are Prüfer, so iseU ⊆ T and T ⊆ V ′ gives that T ⊆ W . Then, T ⊆ We is Prüfer as a subextensione ofeU ⊆ W . e 28 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Moreover, in view of Proposition 4.18, W is the least U-subalgebra of V ′ over which V ′ is integral. Since T ′ ⊆ V ′ is integral, we get that W ⊆ T ′, so that W ∈ [T, T ′], with W ⊆ T ′ integral as a subextension of W ⊆ V ′. It follows that W is also the Prüfer hull of T ⊆ T ′ and T ⊆ T ′ is an FCP almost-Prüfer extension. 5. The case of Nagata extensions In this section we transfer the quasi-Prüfer (and almost-Prüfer) properties to Nagata extensions. Proposition 5.1. Let R ⊆ S be a Prüfer (and FCP) extension, then R(X) ⊆ S(X) is a Prüfer (and FCP) extension. Proof. We can suppose that (R, M) is local, in order to use Proposi- tion 1.2(3). Then it is enough to know the following facts: V (X) is ∼ ∼ a valuation domain if so is V ; R[X]P [X] = R(X)P (X) = RP (X) where P (X)= P R(X) and R(X)/P (X) ∼= (R/P )(X) for P ∈ Spec(R). If in addition R ⊆ S is FCP, it is enough to use [11, Theorem 3.9]: R ⊂ S has FCP if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) has FCP. Proposition 5.2. If R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer, then so is R(X) ⊆ S(X), R(X)= R(X) ∼= R ⊗R R(X) and S(X) ∼= S ⊗R R(X). Proof. It is enough to use proposition 5.1, because R(X)= R(X). The third assertion results from [34, Proposition 4 and Proposition 7]. Proposition 5.3. If R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer, then so is R(X) ⊆ S(X). It follows that R^(X)= R(X) for an almost-Prüfer extension R ⊆ S. e Proof. If R ⊆ S is almost-Prüfer, then R ⊆ R is Prüfer and R ⊆ S is integral and then R(X) ⊆ R(X) is Prüfer and eR(X) ⊆ S(X) ise integral, whence R(X) ⊆ S(X) is almost-Prüfere with Rê(X)= R(X). e Lemma 5.4. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP ring extension such that R = R. Then, R^(X)= R(X). e

Proof. If R(X) =6 R^(X), there is some T ′ ∈ [R(X), R^(X)] such that R(X) ⊂ T ′ is Prüfer minimal. Set C (R(X), T ′) ∈ MSupp(S(X)/R(X)) =: M ′. There is M ∈ MSupp(S/R) such that M ′ = MR(X) [11, Lemma 3.3]. But, M ′ 6∈ MSupp(R(X)/R(X)) = MSupp(R(X)/R(X)) by Proposition 4.19(2), giving that M 6∈ MSupp(R/R) = S (R/R). Then [39, Proposition 1.7(3)] entails that M ∈ S (S/R). By [39, Proposition 1.7(4)], there are some T1, T2 ∈ [R,S] with T1 ⊂ T2 Prüfer minimal (an FCP extension is quasi-Prüfer), with M = C (T1, T2) ∩ R. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 29

We can choose for T1 ⊂ T2 the ﬁrst minimal extension verifying the pre- ceding property. Therefore, M 6∈ S (T1/R), so that M 6∈ S (T1/R) = Supp(T1/R). By [39, Lemma 1.10], we get that there exists T ∈ [R, T2] such that R ⊂ T is Pr¨ufer minimal, a contradiction.

Proposition 5.5. If R ⊂ S is an FCP extension, then, R(X)= R^(X). e Proof. Because R ⊆ R is Prüfer, R(X) ⊆ R(X) is Prüfer by Corol- lary 5.1. Then, R(X)e⊆ R^(X). Assume thate R(X) =6 R^(X) and set T := R, so that Te = T , giving T^(X)= T (X)=eR(X) by Lemma 5.4. HenceeT^(X) ⊂ R^(X) ise a Prüfer extension, contradictinge the definition of T^(X). So, R(X)= R^(X). e Proposition 5.6. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-Prüfer FCP extension, then R(X)= R\(X)= R^(X). b Proof. We have a tower R(X) ⊆ R\(X) = R^(X) = R(X) = R(X), where the first and the third equalities come from Theoreme 4.4b and the second from Proposition 5.5.

We end this section with a special result. Proposition 5.7. Let R ⊆ S be an extension such that R(X) ⊆ S(X) has FIP, then R(X)= R\(X). b Proof. The map [R,S] → [R(X),S(X)] defined by T 7→ T (X) = \ R(X) ⊗R T is bijective [12, Theorem 32], whence R(X) = T (X) for some T ∈ [R,S]. Moreover, R(X) → R\(X) is a flat epimorphism. Since R → R(X) is faithfully flat,b R = T and the result follows. b 6. Fibers of quasi-Prufer¨ extensions We intend to complete some results of Ayache-Dobbs [5]. We begin by recalling some features about quasi-finite ring morphisms. A ring morphism R → S is called quasi-finite by [40] if it is of finite type and κ(P ) → κ(P ) ⊗R S is finite (as a κ(P )-vector space), for each P ∈ Spec(R) [40, Proposition 3, p.40]. Proposition 6.1. A ring morphism of finite type is incomparable if and only if it is quasi-finite and, if and only if its fibers are finite. Proof. Use [41, Corollary 1.8] and the above definition. 30 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Theorem 6.2. An extension R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ T is quasi-finite (respectively, has finite fibers) for each T ∈ [R,S] such that T is of finite type over R, if and only if R ⊆ T has integral fiber morphisms for each T ∈ [R,S]. Proof. It is clear that R ⊆ S is an INC-pair implies the condition because of Proposition 6.1. To prove the converse, let T ∈ [R,S] and write T as the union of its finite type R-subalgebras Tα. Now let Q ⊆ Q′ be prime ideals of T , lying over a prime ideal P of R and ′ ′ set Qα := Q ∩ Tα and Qα := Q ∩ Tα. If R ⊆ Tα is quasi-finite, then ′ ′ Qα = Qα, so that Q = Q and then R ⊆ T is incomparable. The last statement is Proposition 3.8. Corollary 6.3. An integrally closed extension is Prüfer if and only if each of its subextensions R ⊆ T of finite type has finite fibers. Proof. It is enough to observe that the fibers of a (flat) epimorphism have a cardinal ≤ 1, because an epimorphism is spectrally injective. A ring extension R ⊆ S is called strongly affine if each of its subextensions R ⊆ T is of finite type. The above considerations show that in this case R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if each of its subextensions R ⊆ T has finite fibers. For example, an FCP extension is strongly affine and quasi-Prüfer. We also are interested in extensions R ⊆ S that are not necessarily strongly affine and such that each of its subextensions R ⊆ T have finite fibers. Next lemma will be useful, its proof is obvious. Lemma 6.4. Let R ⊆ S be an extension and T ∈ [R,S] (1) If T ⊆ S is spectrally injective and R ⊆ T has finite fibers, then R ⊆ S has finite fibers. (2) If R ⊆ T is spectrally injective, then T ⊆ S has finite fibers if and only if R ⊆ S has finite fibers. Remark 6.5. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-Prüfer extension, such that the integral extension T := R ⊆ S has finite fibers and let P ∈ Spec(R). The study of the finitenesse of FibR,S(P ) can be reduced as follows. As R ⊆ S is an epimorphism, because it is Prüfer, it is spectrally injective (see Scholium A). The hypotheses of Proposition 4.5 hold. We examine three cases. In case (R : R) 6⊆ P , it is well known that RP = (R)P so that |FibR,S(P )| = 1, because R → S is spectrally injective. Suppose now that (R : R)= P . From(R : R)=(T : S)∩R, we deduce that P is ∼ lain over by some Q ∈ Spec(T ) and then FibR,R(P ) = FibT,S(Q). The conclusion follows as above. Thus the remaining case is (R : R) ⊂ P QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 31 ∼ and we can assume that P T = T for if not FibR,R(P ) = FibT,S(Q) for some Q ∈ Spec(T ) by Scholium A (1).

Proposition 6.6. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-P¨rufer extension. If R ⊆ S has finite fiber morphisms and (RP : SP ) is a maximal ideal of ReP for each P ∈ SuppR(S/R), then R ⊆eR and R ⊆ S have finite fibers.e e Proof. The Prüfer closure commutes with the localization at prime ideals by Proposition 4.12. We set T := R. Let P be a prime ideal of R and ϕ : R → RP the canonical morphism.e We clearly have a FibR,.(P )= ϕ(FibRP ,.P (P RP )). Therefore, we can localize the data at P and we can assume that R is local. In case (T : S) = T , we get a factorization R → R → T . Since R → T is Prüfer so is R → R and it follows that R = R because a Prüfer extension is integrally closed. From Proposition 1.2 applied to R ⊆ T , we get that there is some P ∈ Spec(R) such that T = RP, R/P is a valuation ring with quotient field T/P and P = PT . It follows that (T : S) = PT = P ⊆ R, and hence (T : S)=(T : S) ∩ R = (R : R). We have therefore a pushout diagram by Theorem 4.6:

R′ := R/P −−−→ R/P := R′

    T ′ :=yT/P −−−→ S/Py:= S′ where R/P is a valuation domain, T/P is its quotient field and R/P → S/P is Prüfer by [26, Proposition 5.8, p. 52]. Because R′ → S′ is injective and a flat epimorphism, there is a bijective map Min(S′) → Min(R′). But T ′ → S′ is the fiber at P of T → S ′ and is therefore finite. Therefore, Min(S ) is a finite set {N1,...,Nn} of maximal ideals lying over the minimal prime ideals {M1,...,Mn} of ′ ′ ′ ′ R lying over 0 in R . We infer from Lemma 3.7 that R /Mi → S /Ni ′ is Prüfer, whence integrally closed. Therefore, R /Mi is an integral do- ′ ′ main and the integral closure of R in S /Ni. Any maximal ideal M of ′ R contains some Mi. To conclude it is enough to use a result of Gilmer ′ [19, Corollary 20.3] because the number of maximal ideals in R /Mi is ′ ′ less than the separable degree of the extension of fields T ⊆ S /Ni.

Remark 6.7. (1) Suppose that (R : S) is a maximal ideal of R. We clearly have (R : S)P ⊆ (RP : SP e) and the hypotheses on (R :eS) of the above propositione hold.e e 32 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(2) In case R ⊆ S is a tower of finitely many integral minimal extensions Ri−1e ⊆ Ri with Mi = (Ri−1 : Ri), then SuppRe(S/R) = {N1,...,Nn} ⊆ Max(R) where Ni = Mi ∩ R. If the ideals Ni aree dif- ferent, each localizatione at Ni of R ⊆ S is integral minimal and the above result may apply. This generalizese the Ayache-Dobbs result [5, Lemma 3.6], where R ⊆ S is supposed to be integral minimal. Proposition 6.8. Lete R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer ring extension. (1) R ⊆ S has finite fibers if and only if R ⊆ R has finite fibers. (2) R ⊆ R has finite fibers if and only if each extension R ⊆ T , where T ∈ [R,S] has finite fibers.

Proof. (1) Let P ∈ Spec(R) and the morphisms κ(P ) → κ(P ) ⊗R R → κ(P )⊗RS. The first (second) morphism is integral (a flat epimorphism) because deduced by base change from the integral morphism R → R (the flat epimorphism R → S). Therefore, the ring κ(P ) ⊗R R is zero dimensional, so that the second morphism is surjective by Scholium A (2). Set A := κ(P ) ⊗R R and B := κ(P ) ⊗R S, we thus have a module finite flat ring morphism A → B. Hence, AQ → BQ is free for each Q ∈ Spec(A) [16, Proposition 9] and BQ =6 0 because it contains κ(P ) =6 0. Therefore, AQ → BQ is injective and it follows that A ∼= B. (2) Suppose that R ⊆ R has finite fibers and let T ∈ [R,S], then R ⊆ RT is a flat epimorphism by Proposition 4.5(1) and so is κ(P ) ⊗R R → κ(P ) ⊗R RT . Since Spec(κ(P ) ⊗R RT ) → Spec(κ(P ) ⊗R R) is injective, R ⊆ RT has finite fibers. Now R ⊆ T has finite fibers because T ⊆ RT is integral and is therefore spectrally surjective. Remark 6.9. Actually, the statement (1) is valid if we only suppose that R ⊆ S is a flat epimorphism. Next result contains [5, Lemma 3.6], gotten after a long proof. Corollary 6.10. Let R ⊆ S be an almost-Prüfer extension. Then R ⊆ S has finite fibers if and only if R ⊆ R has finite fibers, and if and only if R ⊆ S has finite fibers. Proof. By Propositione 6.8(1) the first equivalence is clear. The second is a consequence of Lemma 6.4(2). The following result is then clear. Theorem 6.11. Let R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension with finite fibers, then R ⊆ T has finite fibers for each T ∈ [R,S]. Corollary 6.12. If R ⊆ S is quasi-finite and quasi-Prüfer, then R ⊆ T has finite fibers for each T ∈ [R,S] and R ⊆ S is module finite. e QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 33

Proof. By the Zariski Main Theorem, there is a factorization R ⊆ F ⊆ S where R ⊆ F is module finite and F ⊆ S is a flat epimorphism [40, Corollaire 2, p.42]. To conclude, we use Scholium A in the rest of the proof. The map R ⊗R F → S is injective because F → R ⊗R F is a flat epimorphisme and is surjective, since it is integral ande a flat epimorphism because R ⊗R F → S is a flat epimorphism . Corollary 6.13. An FMCe extension R ⊆ S is such that R ⊆ T has finite fibers for each T ∈ [R,S]. Proof. Such an extension is quasi-finite and quasi-Prüfer. Then use Corollary 6.12. [5, Example 4.7] exhibits some FMC extension R ⊆ S, such that R ⊆ R has not FCP. Actually, [R, R] is an infinite (maximal) chain. Proposition 6.14. Let R ⊆ S be a quasi-Prüfer extension such that R ⊆ R has finite fibers and R is semi-local. Then T is semi-local for each T ∈ [R,S]. Proof. Obviously R is semi-local. From the tower R ⊆ T R ⊆ S we deduce that R ⊆ T R is Prüfer. It follows that T R is semi-local [5, Lemma 2.5 (f)]. As T ⊆ T R is integral, we get that T is semi-local. The following proposition gives a kind of converse. Proposition 6.15. Let R ⊆ S be an extension with R semi-local. Then R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer if and only if T is semi-local for each T ∈ [R,S]. Proof. If R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer, R ⊆ S is Prüfer. Let T ∈ [R,S] and set T ′ := T R, so that T ⊆ T ′ is integral, and R ⊆ T ′ is Prüfer (and then a normal pair). It follows from [5, Lemma 2.5 (f)] that T ′ is semi-local, and so is T . If T is semi-local for each T ∈ [R,S], so is any T ∈ [R,S]. Then, (R,S) is a residually algebraic pair [6, Theorem 3.10] (generalized to arbitrary extensions) and so is RM ⊆ SM for each M ∈ Max(R), whence is Prüfer [6, Theorem 2.5] (same remark) and Proposition 1.2. Then, R ⊆ S is Prüfer by Proposition 1.1 and R ⊆ S is quasi-Prüfer.

7. Numerical properties of FCP extensions Lemma 7.1. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP extension. The map ϕ :[R,S] → ′ ′′ ′ ′′ {(T , T ) ∈ [R, R]×[R,S] | SuppT ′ (R/T )∩SuppT ′ (T /R)= ∅}, deﬁned by ϕ(T ) := (T ∩ R, RT ) for each T ∈ [R,S], is bijective. In particular, if R ⊂ S has FIP, then |[R,S]|≤|[R, R]||[R,S]|. 34 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proof. Let (T ′, T ′′) ∈ [R, R]×[R,S]. Then, R is also the integral closure of T ′ in T ′′ (and in S). Let T ∈ [R,S]. Set T ′ := T ∩ R and T ′′ := RT . Then (T ′, T ′′) ∈ [R, R]×[R,S]. Assume that T ′ = T ′′, so that T ′ = T ′′ = R, giving T = ′ ′′ ′ ′′ R and SuppT ′ (R/T ) = SuppT ′ (T /R) = ∅. Assume that T =6 T . In ′ ′′ view of [39, Proposition 3.6], we get SuppT ′ (R/T )∩SuppT ′ (T /R)= ∅. Hence ϕ is well defined. ′ ′′ Now, let T1, T2 ∈ [R,S] be such that ϕ(T1) = ϕ(T2)=(T , T ). ′ ′′ Assume T =6 T . Another use of [39, Proposition 3.6] gives that T1 = ′ ′′ ′ ′′ T2. If T = T , then, T = T = R, so that T1 = T2 = R. It follows that ϕ is injective. The same reference gives that ϕ is bijective. Proposition 7.2. Let R ⊂ S be a FCP extension. We define two order-isomorphisms ϕ′ and ψ as follows: ϕ′ :[R, R~] → [R, R] × [R, R~] defined by ϕ′(T ) := (T ∩ R, T R) ψ :[R, R~] → [R, R] × [R, R~ ] defined by ψ(T ) := (T ∩ R, T R). e e e e Proof. This follows from [39, Lemma 3.7] and Proposition 4.19. (We recall that R~ = R.) e Corollary 7.3. If R ⊆ S has FCP, then Supp(R/~ R) = Supp(R/R), Supp(R/~ R) = Supp(R/R) and Supp(R/R~ ) = Supp(R/Re )∪Supp(R/R). e e Proof. Set A := Supp(R/R), B := Supp(R/R), C := Supp(R/R) and D := Supp(R/R).e Then,e A ∪ B = C ∪e D = Supp(R/R),e with A ∩ B = C ∩ D = B ∩ D = ∅ by Proposition 4.19. e Assume that A ∪ B =6 B ∪ D and let P ∈ (A ∪ B) \ (B ∪ D).

Then, RP =6 (R)P = (R)P (R)P = RP , a contradiction. It follows that A ∪ B = B ∪ eD. Intersectinge the two members of this equality with A and D, we get A = A ∩ D = D. In the same way, intersecting the equality A ∪ B = C ∪ D = C ∪ A by B and C, we get B = C. Corollary 7.4. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP extension. We deﬁne two order- isomorphisms ϕ1 :[R, R] → [R, R~] by ϕ1(T ) := T R ψ1 :[R, Re] → [R, R~ ] by ψ1(T ) := T R. e e Proof. We use notation of Proposition 4.19. We begin to remark that R and R play symmetric roles. ′ ′ Let T,e T ∈ [R, R] be such that ϕ1(T ) = ϕ1(T ). Since T ∩ R = T ′ ∩ R = R by Propositione 4.19, we get ϕ(T )= ϕ(T ′), so that T = T ′ and ϕ1 is injective. A similar argument shows that ψ1 is injective. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 35

Let U ∈ [R, R]. There exists T ∈ [R, R] such that ϕ(T )=(R, U), so that R = T ∩ Re and U = T R. Let M ∈e Supp(R/R) = Supp(R/R) ∪ Supp(R/R) by Corollary 7.3. If M ∈ Supp(R/R),e then M 6∈ Supp(e R/R) by Proposition 4.19, giving TM ⊆ RM =eRM RM = RM . If M ∈ Supp(R/R), the same reasoning giveseTM ⊆ RMe, so thate RM = TM ∩ RM = TM , but RM = RM . Then, TM = RM . It follows that T ⊆ R, giving T ∈ [R, R] and ϕe1 is surjective, hencee bijective. A similar argu-e ment shows thate ψ1 is surjective, hence bijective. Corollary 7.5. If R ⊂ S has FCP, then θ :[R, R] × [R, R] → [R, R~] deﬁned by θ(T, T ′) := T T ′, is an order-isomorphism.e In particular, if R ⊂ S has FIP, then |[R, R]||[R, R]= |[R, R~]k≤|[R,S]|. e Proof. Using notation of Proposition 7.2 and Corollary 7.4, we may remark that ψ◦θ = Id×ψ1. Since ψ and Id×ψ1 are order-isomorphisms, so is θ. The FIP case is obvious.

Gathering the previous results, we get the following theorem. Theorem 7.6. If R ⊂ S has FCP, the next statements are equivalent: (1) Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(S/R)= ∅. (2) The map ϕ :[R,S] → [R, R] × [R,S] deﬁned by ϕ(T ) := (T ∩ R, T R) is an order-isomorphism. (3) R ⊆ S is almost-Pr¨ufer. (4) Supp(S/R) = Supp(R/R).

(5) The map ϕ1 :[R, R]e→ [R,S] defined by ϕ1(T ) := T R is an order-isomorphism.e (6) The map ψ1 :[R, R] → [R,S] defined by ψ1(T ) := T R is an order-isomorphism. e e (7) The map θ :[R, R] × [R, R] → [R,S] defined by θ(T, T ′) := T T ′ is an order-isomorphism.e If one of these conditions holds, then Supp(S/R) = Supp(R/R). If R ⊂ S has FIP, the former conditions aree equivalent to each of the following conditions: (8) |[R,S]| = |[R, R]||[R, R]|. (9) k[R,S]| = |[R,eR]||[R,S]|. (10) |[R, R]| = |[R,S]|. (11) |[R, Re]| = |[R,S]|. e Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) by [39, Lemma 3.7]. 36 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(2) ⇒ (1). If the statement (2) holds, there exists T ∈ [R,S] such that T ∩ R = R and T R = S. Then, [39, Proposition 3.6] gives that Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(S/R)= ∅. (1) ⇒ (3) by [39, Proposition 3.6]. (3) ⇒ (4), (5), (6) and (7): Use Corollary 7.3 to get (4), Corollary 7.4 to get (5) and (6), and Corollary 7.5 to get (7). Moreover, (3) and Corollary 7.3 give Supp(S/R) = Supp(R/R). (4) ⇒ (1) by Propositione 4.19(2). (5), (6) or (7) ⇒ (3) because, in each case, we have S = RR. Assume now that R ⊂ S has FIP. e Then, obviously, (7) ⇒ (8), (2) ⇒ (9), (5) ⇒ (10) and (6) ⇒ (11). (9) ⇒ (3) by Corollary 7.5, which gives |[R, R]||[R, R]| = |[R, R]|, so that |[R,S]| = |[R, R]|, and then S = R. e e (8) ⇒ (1): Usinge the map ϕ of Lemmae 7.1, we get that {(T ′, T ′′) ∈ ′ ′′ [R, R] × [R,S] | SuppT ′ (R/T ) ∩ SuppT ′ (T /R)= ∅} = [R, R] × [R,S], so that SuppR(R/R) ∩ SuppR(S/R)= ∅. (10) ⇒ (3) and (11) ⇒ (3) by Corollary 7.4. Example 7.7. We give an example where the results of Theorem 7.6 2 do not hold if R ⊆ S has not FCP. Set R := ZP and S := Q[X]/(X ), where P ∈ Max(Z). Then, R = Q because R ⊂ R is Pr¨ufer (minimal) and R ⊂ S is integral minimal.e Set M := P RP ∈eMax(R) with (R, M) a locale ring. It follows that M ∈ Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(S/R) because R ⊂ S is neither integral, nor Pr¨ufer. Similarly, M ∈ Supp(R/R) ∩ Supp(R/R). Indeed, R ⊂ R has not FCP. e We end the paper by some length computations in the FCP case. Proposition 7.8. Let R ⊆ S be an FCP extension. The following statements hold: (1) ℓ[R, R]= ℓ[R, R~] and ℓ[R, R]= ℓ[R, R~ ] (2) ℓ[R, R~e]= ℓ[R, R]+ ℓ[R, R~]= ℓ[R, Re ]+ ℓ[R, R~ ] ~ ~ (3) ℓ[R, R]= |SuppeR(R/Re)| = ℓ[R, R]= |SuppR(R/R)|. e e Proof. To prove (1), use the maps ϕ1 and ψ1 of Corollary 7.4. Then (2) follows from [11, Theorem 4.11] and (3) from [10, Proposition 6.12].

References [1] D.F. Anderson and D.E. Dobbs, Pairs of rings with the same prime ideals, Can. J. Math. XXXII, (1980), 362–384. [2] D. F. Anderson, D. E. Dobbs and M. Fontana, On treed Nagata rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 61, (1989), 107–122. QUASI-PRUFER¨ EXTENSIONS 37

[3] A. Ayache, M. Ben Nasr, O. Echi and N. Jarboui, Universally catenarian and going-down pairs of rings, Math. Z, 238, (2001), 695–731. [4] A. Ayache, A constructive study about the set of intermediate rings, Comm. Algebra, 41 (2013), 4637–4661. [5] A. Ayache and D. E. Dobbs, Finite maximal chains of commutative rings, JAA, 14, (2015), 14500751–1450075-27. [6] A. Ayache and A. Jaballah, Residually algebraic pairs of rings, Math. Z, 225, (1997), 49–65. [7] M. Ben Nasr and N. Jarboui, New results about normal pairs of rings with zero-divisors, Ricerche mat. 63 (2014), 149–155. [8] R.D. Chatham, Going-down pairs of commutative rings, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, Serie II, Tomo L, (2001), 509–542. [9] G. W. Chang and M. Fontana, Uppers to 0 in polynomial rings and Prüfer -like domains, Comm. Algebra, 37 (2009), 164–192. [10] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Characterizing the ring extensions that satisfy FIP or FCP, J. Algebra, 371 (2012), 391–429. [11] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Transfer results for the FIP and FCP properties of ring extensions, Comm. Algebra, 43 (2015), 1279–1316. [12] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, When an extension of Nagata rings has only finitely many intermediate rings, each of those is a Nagata ring?, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci., 2014 (2014), Article ID315919, 13 pp. [13] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet, M. Picavet-L’Hermitte and J. Shapiro, On intersections and composites of minimal ring extensions, J P J. Algebra, Number Theory Appl., 26 (2012), 103–158. [14] D. E. Dobbs, On characterizations of integrality involving the lying-over and incomparability properties, J. Comm. Algebra, 1 (2009), 227–235. [15] D.E. Dobbs and J. Shapiro, Pseudo-normal pairs of integral domains, Hous- ton J. Math., 40 (2014), 1–9. [16] S. Endo, On semi-hereditary rings, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 13 (1961), 109– 119. [17] D. Ferrand and J.-P. Olivier, Homomorphismes minimaux d’anneaux, J. Algebra, 16 (1970), 461–471. [18] M. Fontana, J. A. Huckaba and I. J. Papick, Prüfer domains, Dekker, New York, 1997. [19] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Dekker, New York, 1972. [20] M. Griffin, Prüfer rings with zero divisors, Journal fur die reine and ange- wande Mathematik, 239, (1969), 55–67. [21] M. Grandet, Une caratérisation des morphismes minimaux non entiers, C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 271, (1970), Série A 581–583. [22] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, Eléments de Géométrie Algébrique, Springer Verlag, Berlin, (1971). [23] E. Houston, Uppers to zero in polynomial rings, pp. 243–261, in: Multi- plicative Ideal Theory in Commutative Algebra, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2006. [24] A. Jaballah, Finiteness of the set of intermediary rings in normal pairs, Saitama Math. J., 17 (1999), 59–61. 38 G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

[25] N. Jarboui and E. Massaoud, On finite saturated chains of overrings, Comm. Algebra, 40, (2012), 1563–1569. [26] M. Knebusch and D. Zhang, Manis Valuations and Prüfer Extensions I, Springer, Berlin, 2002. [27] D. Lazard, Autour de la platitude, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 97, (1969), 81–128. [28] M. Lazarus, Fermeture intégrale et changement de base, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse, 6, (1984), 103–120. [29] T. G. Lucas, Some results on Prüfer rings, Pacific J. Math., 124, (1986), 333–343. [30] K. Morita, Flat modules, Injective modules and quotient rings, Math. Z., 120 (1971), 25–40. [31] J.P. Olivier, Anneaux absolument plats universels et épimorphismes àbuts réduits, Séminaire Samuel. Algèbre Commutative, Tome 2 (1967-1968), exp. no 6, p. 1–12. [32] J. P. Olivier, Montée des propriétépar morphismes absolument plats, J. Alg. Pure Appl., Universitédes Sciences et Technique du Languedoc, Mont- pellier, France (1971). [33] J.P. Olivier, Going up along absolutely flat morphisms, J. Pure Appl. Al- gebra, 30 (1983), 47–59. [34] G. Picavet, Propriétés et applications de la notion de contenu, Comm. Algebra,13, (1985), 2231–2265. [35] G. Picavet, Universally going-down rings, 1-split rings, and absolute integral closure, Comm. Algebra, 31, (2003), 4655–4685. [36] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, About minimal morphisms, pp. 369–386, in: Multiplicative Ideal Theory in Commutative Algebra, Springer, New York, 2006. [37] G. Picavet, Seminormal or t-closed schemes and Rees rings, Algebra Repr. Theory, 1, (1998), 255–309. [38] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Some more combinatorics results on Nagata extensions, Palestine J. Math., 1, (Spec.1), (2016), 49–62. [39] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Prüfer and Morita hulls of FCP extensions, Comm. Algebra, 43, (2015), 102-119. [40] M. Raynaud, Anneaux locaux Henséliens, Lect. Notes in Math., Springer, Vol. 169, (1970). [41] H. Uda, Incomparability in ring extensions, Hiroshima Math. J., 9, (1979), 451–463. [42] S. Visweswaran, Laskerian pairs, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 59, (1989), 87–110.

Universite´ Blaise Pascal, Laboratoire de Mathematiques,´ UMR6620 CNRS, 24, avenue des Landais, BP 80026, 63177 Aubiere` CEDEX, France E-mail address: [email protected] E-mail address: picavet.gm(at)wanadoo.fr